Reading time: 9 minutes
The “hoax papers” written by James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian generated great interest among their colleagues and the media. Jonathan Haidt, of the University of New York, called it “one of the biggest academic events of the decade.”1
Amanda Borschel-Dan, Deputy Editor of The Times of Israel, wondered about the implications of the Mein Kampf/feminist article having been accepted for publication in a leading feminist journal.2 She wrote:
The term ‘Femi-Nazi’ became all too accurate when a trio of academic tricksters participating in an elaborate hoax submitted portions of Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ rewritten through a feminist lens to a leading peer-reviewed feminist journal.
Borschel-Dan concluded that: it makes “one wonder about the Ivory Towers’ foundations.”
Alexander C. Kafka interviewed Helen Pluckrose for The Chronicle of Higher Education.3 He asked her how she responded to the criticism that the hoaxes were carried out in bad faith. She responded, “Scholarship should not depend on the identity or motivation of the writers. The papers are either sound or they aren’t.”
Zack Beauchamp, senior correspondent for Vox, used ad hominem guilt-by-association charges.4 Boghossian, he wrote, had even collaborated with the “Freedomain” YouTube podcaster, Stefan Molyneux. Beauchamp’s is a political and moral argument casting aspersion on Boghossian himself rather than responding to Boghossian’s critique of scholarship in the “grievance” fields. Boghossian countered that he had not collaborated with Molyneau for political reasons but for metaphysical reasons—neither believes in the existence of God.
Joel P. Christensen and Matthew A. Sears likewise objected to the “grievance studies” project.5 Christensen is a professor of classical studies at Brandeis University. Sears teaches classics and ancient history at the University of New Brunswick. Neither is a specialist in postmodernism or its subfields.
They wrote that the project was a “put-down of academics concerned with racial issues.” For example, Christensen and Sears objected to the Mein Kampf spoof as well as to Boghossian, et. al.’s challenging Robin D’Angelo’s book, White Fragility, a wildly popular book among “liberals” which Christensen and Sears call “seminal.” Then they do what Beauchamp does: proclaim Boghossian, et. al. guilty of racism by association with “avowed white nationalists.” However, the trio’s “grievance studies” papers were intended neither to study nor dismiss race or gender issues. Their intention, with reason, was to call into question the unscientific methodologies, indecipherable jargon, and bullying that permeates those fields.
On November 9, 2018, a group of twelve anonymous faculty members calling themselves the “PSU Pro-Educational Editorial Collective” sent a letter addressed to “Portland State Students.” It was titled, “‘Conceptual Penises’ and Other Trolling” and was published in the university’s newspaper, PSU Vanguard.6 They, too, did not address the issues raised by Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose instead engaging in ad hominem attacks. For example, the anonymous writers called them “a clown car,” said the “authors knowingly [wasted] the time, effort and goodwill” of reviewers and editors, that they were guilty of “academic dishonesty,” “research misconduct,” “[d]esperate reasoning, basic spite, a perverse interest in public humiliation,” “flat out disrespect of colleagues,” did so “for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement,” and that their “goal, in the contemporary bullying style of Trumpist politics, is to ridicule others for personal gain.” Again, guilt by association even though there was no association.
According to the US Office of Research Integrity, “research misconduct” consists of “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.”7 Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the context of satire do not have the requisite intention to deceive. The ORI also says that a “difference of opinion” is not academic misconduct. There is a substantial difference of opinion between Boghossian and the anonymous writers concerning a wildly important issue in academics today.
The Collective betrayed widespread strictures on anonymity. Publishing anonymous or pseudonymous letters to the editor is against policy at The University of Michigan’s The Michigan Daily,8 the Washington Post,9 the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s The Polytechnic,10 Duke University’s The Chronicle,11 the Ashville, North Carolina Mountain Xpress,12 the Detroit Free Press,13 the Portland Press Herald,14 the Toronto Star,15 the Case Western Reserve Observer,16 and the National Catholic Reporter17, to name just a few. There are occasional exceptions as when the publication of the author’s name could put him or her in real danger. Specific examples cited include exposés by victims of sex trafficking or Chinese students criticizing the Chinese government. The Polytechnic also explicitly states that a submission by an invented organization, such as the PSU Pro-Educational Editorial Collective, is effectively an anonymous submission and will not be published.18
The reason for not accepting anonymous letters to the editor is simple: the principles of free speech and academic transparency demand writers stand by their opinions.
On January 7, 2019, Colleen Flaherty reported in Inside Higher Education that Peter Boghossian was facing disciplinary action by Portland State.19 The board said he had failed to “alert his [institutional] research review board before hoodwinking journal editors with outrageous articles.” They had got him on a fraudulent technicality, i.e. failing to secure its approval before proceeding with “research on human subjects.”
James Varney, writing for The Washington Times said, “A scholar whose carefully crafted fiction helped expose the rot within some sectors of the modern academy is now under fire from his home, Portland State University, although prominent academics throughout the West have risen to his defense.”20 Among those academics were evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, professor emeritus at the University of Oxford. In a scathing put-down of Portland State, he wrote,
My first response on reading of the punitive investigation into Dr. Peter Boghossian’s brilliant hoax was to let out a howl of incredulous mirth. Do your humourless colleagues who brought this action want Portland State to become the laughing stock of the academic world? Or at least the world of serious scientific scholarship uncontaminated by pretentious charlatans of exactly the kind Dr. Boghossian and his colleagues were satirising?”21
Jordan B. Peterson, then professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, wrote a sizzling defense of Boghossian:
From my perspective, any ‘academic misconduct’ that is occurring is being perpetrated by those who are raising and pursuing the allegations, and most certainly not on the part of Dr. Boghossian.
. . .
[the trio were simply pointing out] the embarrassing nakedness of the emperor. . . . The fact that he is now being pursued by your institution for ‘academic misconduct’ is nothing but further proof of the absolute corruption characterizing the very disciplines he so rightly satirized, pilloried and exposed.22
Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, did not mince words:
This strikes me (and every colleague I’ve spoken with) as an attempt to weaponize an important [principle] of academic ethics in order to punish a scholar for expressing an unpopular opinion. If scholars feel they have been subject to unfair criticism, they should explain why they think the critic is wrong. It should be beneath them to try to punish and silence him.
Robert Shibley of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE] said:
Boghossian's situation is evidence that IRBs [Internal Research Boards] in general have moved well beyond their original mandate, which was to protect test subjects from real abuse. The federal law requiring scientists to consult IRBs before gathering research dates to 1974, and was originally intended to prevent misconduct along the lines of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which researchers failed to give proper medical care to hundreds of black patients who had contracted the disease.
. . . With acuity, Shibley concluded,
When it comes to this type of research . . . it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that if the rules forbid it, it’s the rules, not the researchers, that have gone wrong.
Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University, argued that to accuse Boghossian of data fabrication would constitute:
a profound moral error—an injustice—that will be obvious to all who hear about your decision, . . . [they] are whistleblowers, taking a risk to expose . . . fraud.23
The controversy continued. In September 2021, Boghossian submitted his letter of resignation to Provost Susan Jeffords.24 In it, he described an atmosphere created by administration, faculty, and students that was hostile to anyone who bucked the censorious system.
James McWilliams, “A Philosopher’s Hoax Embarrassed Several Academic Journals. Was it Satire or Fraud? By Resorting to Satire, did Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian Violate Basic Professional and Ethical Standards?” Pacific Standard, January 25, 2019. https://psmag.com/education/a-philosophers-hoax-embarrassed-several-academic-journals-was-it-satire-or-fraud. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Amanda Borschel-Dan, “Duped Academic Journal Publishes Rewrite of Mein Kampf as Feminist Manifesto,” The Times of Israel, October 5, 2018. https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/. Accessed February 5, 2024.
Alexander C. Kafka, “Scholar Who Pulled Off Publishing Hoax Defends It: ‘Papers Are Either Sound or They Aren’t’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 5, 2018.
Zack Beauchamp, “The Controversy Around Hoax Studies in Critical Theory, Explained,” Vox, October 15, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax. Accessed February 5, 2024.
Joel P. Christensen and Matthew A. Sears, “The Overlooked Messages of the Sokal-Squared Hoax,” Inside Higher Education, October 29, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/10/30/sokal-squared-hoax-was-put-down-scholars-concerned-racial-issues-opinion. Accessed February 3, 2024.
PSU Pro-Educational Editorial Collective (invented group), “‘Conceptual Penises’ and Other Trolling: On the Philosophy of Science and Making Sense of ‘Hoax Studies’, November 9, 2018. https://psuvanguard.com/conceptual-penises-and-other-trolling/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Office of Research Integrity, “Research Misconduct.” https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Julian C. Barnard and Quin Zapoli, “From the Editors: How to We Decide Whether to Publish Anonymous Letters to the Editor and Op-Eds?”, The Michigan Daily, April 10, 2023. https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/columns/from-the-editors-how-do-we-decide-whether-to-publish-anonymous-letters-to-the-editor-and-op-eds/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
The Washington Post, “Send a Letter to the Editor.” https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/236004788-Send-a-letter-to-the-editor. Accessed February 7, 2024.
John Stotz and Brookelyn Parslow, “Why We Don’t Publish Anonymous Letters to the Editor,” The Polytechnic, January 15, 2020. https://poly.rpi.edu/opinion/2020/01/why-we-dont-publish-anonymous-letters-to-the-editors/. Accessed February 5, 2024.
Duke University, The Chronicle, “Letters to the Editor.” https://www.dukechronicle.com/page/letters-to-the-editor. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Mountain Xpress, “Submit Letters to the Editor.” https://mountainx.com/submit-letters/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Detroit Free Press, “Letter to the Editor.” https://static.freep.com/lettertoeditor/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Portland Press Herald, “Times Record Letters to the Editor.” https://www.pressherald.com/times-record-letters-to-the-editor/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Kathy English, "Should the Star Publish Anonymous Letters to the Editor?”, Toronto Star, February 28, 2014. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/public-editor/should-the-star-publish-anonymous-letters-to-the-editor-public-editor/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Cast Western Reserve Observer, “Letters to the Editor.” https://observer.case.edu/submit-a-letter/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
National Catholic Reporter, “Join the Conversation.” https://www.ncronline.org/join-conversation. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Stotz and Parslow, “Why We Don’t Publish Anonymous Letters to the Editor.”
Colleen Flaherty, “Blowback Against a Hoax,” Inside Higher Education, January 7, 2019. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/08/author-recent-academic-hoax-faces-disciplinary-action-portland-state. Accessed February 5, 2024.
James Varney, “Peter Boghossian, Portland State Univ. Professor, to Face Discipline for Exposing Shoddy Scholarship,” The Washington Times, January 7, 2019. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/7/peter-boghossian-portland-state-univ-professor-fac/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Varney, “Peter Boghossian,” quoting Richard Dawkins.
Varney, “Peter Boghossian,” quoting Jordan B. Peterson.
James McWilliams, “A Philosopher’s Hoax Embarrassed Several Academic Journals,” quoting Jonathan Haidt.
Peter Boghossian, “My University Sacrificed Ideas for Ideology. So Today, I Quit: The More I Spoke Out Against the Illiberalism That Has Swallowed Portland State University, the More Retaliation I Faced,” originally published at https://substack.com/@bariweiss, September 8, 2021. Later published at https://peterboghossian.com/my-resignation-letter. Accessed February 9, 2024.