Professors Censored And Persecuted For Trying To Publish Scientific Study About Male/Female Brains

[FULL RECORDING] Lindsay Shepherd Interrogated by Wilfrid Laurier Over a Jordan Peterson Video – YouTube

 

Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole – Quillette: This is a long article and a must-read one for it shows crystal clear how our ‘schools’ are now ideology machines designed by Maoist females and radical leftists.  They are now censoring other professors for doing research that wrecks feminist ideology, in this case, the pretense that female brains are identical to male brains.  Women in STEM fields are being hoisted over men in these fields, given jobs and promotions way beyond their abilities just because they are females.  This, in turn, is steadily destroying STEM fields in our universities and these lower IQ females are now digging in and actively destroy male researchers based on their twisted ideology.

 

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

 

Darwin noticed this 150 years ago.  He was attacked relentlessly by armies of people both conservative and communist, over the last 150 years.  Both Soviet and Maoist ideology was anti-Darwin, for example.  The communists to this very day, hate any real information about evolution because it wrecks their narrative about how people are all identical.

 

Darwin had also raised the question of why males in many species might have evolved to be more variable than females, and when I learned that the answer to his question remained elusive, I set out to look for a scientific explanation. My aim was not to prove or disprove that the hypothesis applies to human intelligence or to any other specific traits or species, but simply to discover a logical reason that could help explain how gender differences in variability might naturally arise in the same species.

 

Darwin used logic coupled with many, many examples.  He actually is the singular male human being who created the entire concept of ‘scientific methodology’.  Einstein was an old fashioned scientist, he did his work in an office, mostly thinking about stuff.

 

Darwin, on the other hand, traveled extensively and observed nature and took many careful notes and my own godmother, a woman scientist who published her first study about Condor vultures 110 years ago, admired and loved Darwin and was a fierce fighter for his research which is still, to this day, under sustained attack from both the far right and far left.

 

I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model. When I posted a preprint on the open-access mathematics archives in May of last year, a variability researcher at Durham University in the UK got in touch by email. He described our joint paper as “an excellent summary of the research to date in this field,” adding that “it certainly underpins my earlier work on impulsivity, aggression and general evolutionary theory and it is nice to see an actual theoretical model that can be drawn upon in discussion (which I think the literature, particularly in education, has lacked to date). I think this is a welcome addition to the field.”

 

The professors in the above paragraph are highly aware that no one has published anything about all this so far, so they were excited that it was now happening.  Note that the professor in the UK was particularly mentioning how this has not been studied in ‘education’ studies!  Duh! The ‘education studies’ field is dominated by crazy females who hate reality and want to impose leftist ideologies there.

 

Professor Senechal suggested that we might enliven our paper by mentioning Harvard President Larry Summers, who was swiftly defenestrated in 2005 for saying that the GMVH might be a contributing factor to the dearth of women in physics and mathematics departments at top universities. With her editorial guidance, our paper underwent several further revisions until, on April 3, 2017, our manuscript was officially accepted for publication. The paper was typeset in India, and proofread by an assistant editor who is also a mathematics professor in Kansas. It was scheduled to appear in the international journal’s first issue of 2018, with an acknowledgement of funding support to my co-author from the National Science Foundation. All normal academic procedure.

 

There are some women professors who are not crazed feminists.  But Senechal was not prepared to fight her fellow females in the ensuing battle over who gets to do research and publish results.

 

No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. “As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”

 

Note how Victorian the feminists really are!  Anyone questioning their crazy dogma is ‘harming (helpless, silly, weak) females’ who can’t debate things or prove someone is wrong using scientific tools.

 

A few days later, she again contacted Sergei on behalf of WIM and invited him to attend a lunch that had been organized for a “frank and open discussion” about our paper. He would be allowed 15 minutes to describe and explain our results, and this short presentation would be followed by readings of prepared statements by WIM members and then an open discussion. “We promise to be friendly,” she announced, “but you should know in advance that many (most?) of us have strong disagreements with what you did.”

 

Classic Maoist tactics.  The victim gets a few short minutes and then has to endure sustained attacks by a gang of crazed feminists who get to control the conversation.  Here’s the full recording of Wilfrid Laurier reprimanding Lindsay Shepherd for showing a Jordan Peterson video | National Post: when a graduate student let her students see this verboten brief video, she was hauled into the Feminist Hell Hole to be interrogated by a gang of vicious females who tried desperately to muscle her and teach her a lesson about letting anyone dispute their ugly ideology.

 

This backfired for Professor Peterson stepped in, personally, to help Wilfrid.  This, in turn, caused the far left to riot on campuses.  This then led to Peterson leaving teaching entirely and he now makes a fine living selling books and giving very popular lectures in public.

 

On September 4, Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that “women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias.” Sergei said he had spent “endless hours” talking to people who explained that the paper was “bad and harmful” and tried to convince him to “withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have.” Ominously, “analogies with scientific racism were made by some; I am afraid, we are likely to hear more of it in the future.”

 

What an ugly work environment!  And it is typical, not unusual, at all schools now.  The Maoists took over and they use classic Maoist tactics.  If ‘persuasion’ fails, they then use force and will physically menace victims until they either die or flee.

 

In this case, the Maoists wanted to have an inquisition attacking the professors who did honest research.  This was to be a ‘show trial’ sort of hearing which was set up to have a bunch of crazed feminists attacking relentlessly demanding the professors admit to being social criminals and would then back down and not publish anything irritating to the feminists.

 

But then they became scared.  After the fiasco of crazed feminists attacking professors and Google engineers, driving men out of the computer world as well as academia, they realized this would make some news and worse, they would have to debate, not snap orders.

 

All the feminists attacking Jordan Peterson, for example, blew up in their faces.  Bret Weinstein, the professor at the center of the student riots at Evergreen College, remains politically active, too and is a slap in the face of all radicals on the left.  Both Weinstein and Peterson were once classic liberals.  But there is no more tolerance for classic liberalism in the public square anymore.  The far left hates liberals more than they hate conservatives.

 

But, that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted. Working mathematicians are usually thrilled if even five people in the world read our latest article. Now some progressive faction was worried that a fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?

 

There it is: politics intruding.  So, scientific information of high import has to be suppressed because it might have an impact on society!  Worse, it might be debated across the planet!  These same crazy females are in an alliance from hell with Muslim men and women who want to kill feminism which I find funny as well as pathetic.  This is pure insanity.

 

In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an already-accepted paper. And so I emailed Professor Senechal. She replied that she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky. In the interests of setting our arguments in a more responsible context, she proposed instead that Sergei and I participate in a ‘Round Table’ discussion of our hypothesis argument, the proceedings of which the Intelligencer would publish in lieu of our paper. Her decision, we learned, enjoyed the approval of Springer, one of the world’s leading publishers of scientific books and journals. An editorial director of Springer Mathematics later apologized to me twice, in person, but did nothing to reverse the decision or to support us at the time.

 

So, after repeated attempts at ‘revising’ the article, the professors failed to stop the radical feminist attacks.  Instead, as in all such cases, the radicals smelled blood and went for the jungular.

 

So what in the world had happened at the Intelligencer? Unbeknownst to us, Amie Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. A back-and-forth had ensued. Wilkinson then enlisted the support of her father—a psychometrician and statistician—who wrote to the Intelligencer at his daughter’s request to express his own misgivings, including his belief that “[t]his article oversimplifies the issues to the point of embarrassment.” Invited by Professor Senechal to participate in the proposed Round Table discussion, he declined, admitting to Senechal that “others are more expert on this than he is.” We discovered all this after he gave Senechal permission to forward his letter, inadvertently revealing Wilkinson’s involvement in the process (an indiscretion his daughter would later—incorrectly—blame on the Intelligencer).

 

HAHAHA…the father of this harridan attacking a scientist accidentally forwarded his daughter’s email begging daddy to attack a fellow professor!  Then the creepy daughter blamed innocent bystanders for this!  It never ceases to amaze me how feminists suddenly become fainting violets and can’t take ownership of their own harridan actions.

 

I wrote polite emails directly to both Wilkinson and her father, explaining that I planned to revise the paper for resubmission elsewhere and asking for their criticisms or suggestions. (I also sent a more strongly worded, point-by-point rebuttal to her father.) Neither replied. Instead, even long after the Intelligencer rescinded acceptance of the paper, Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social media, inciting her Facebook friends with the erroneous allegation that an entirely different (and more contentious) article had been accepted.

 

Lying about facts is what these radicals do without thinking.  Telling the truth is a remote possibility.  Note how anti-Trump mainstream media effortlessly and continuously lies about everything now.  They lie about obvious things like the weather, for example.  Just this month, with ice growing at the North Pole and the summer melt being less than normal, the mainstream media is screaming about the ice melting and the people pushing these lies are professors who are radical leftists.

 

Nearly every science is now under sustained attack.  Anything to do with evolution, for example, is being attacked by both the far right and far left.

 

 At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research. Fortunately for me, I am now retired and rather less easily intimidated—one of the benefits of being a Vietnam combat veteran and former U.S. Army Ranger, I guess. So, I continued to revise the paper, and finally posted it on the online mathematics archives.

 

Note the lack of diversity of ideology or thinking!  Yes, the radicals running our schools are literally dumbing everything down so they can be comfortable within their ideologies even when these are stupid, backward, destructive or insane.  All our schools are increasingly in lock step in ideology.  This is deliberate and destructive.

 

On October 13, a lifeline appeared. Igor Rivin, an editor at the widely respected online research journal, the New York Journal of Mathematics, got in touch with me. He had learned about the article from my erstwhile co-author, read the archived version, and asked me if I’d like to submit a newly revised draft for publication. Rivin said that Mark Steinberger, the NYJM’s editor-in-chief, was also very positive and that they were confident the paper could be refereed fairly quickly. I duly submitted a new draft (this time as the sole author) and, after a very positive referee’s report and a handful of supervised revisions, Steinberger wrote to confirm publication on November 6, 2017. Relieved that the ordeal was finally over, I forwarded the link to interested colleagues.

 

The poor victim of this female crusade thought he finally found some help.  He went to work to produce what was asked and humbly let them force him to reduce the value of the work by modifying it to satiate the feminist creeps and…then this all blew up, of course:

 

Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been. As it turned out, Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board. Upon discovering that the journal had published my paper, Professor Farb had written a furious email to Steinberger demanding that it be deleted at once. “Rivin,” he complained, “is well-known as a person with extremist views who likes to pick fights with people via inflammatory statements.” Farb’s “father-in law…a famous statistician,” he went on, had “already poked many holes in the ridiculous paper.” My paper was “politically charged” and “pseudoscience” and “a piece of crap” and, by encouraging the NYJM to accept it, Rivin had “violat[ed] a scientific duty for purely political ends.”

 

Worse, the deletion was FOREVER.  The author had no more rights to the article.  The professor was cheated out of his work.  The debates never happened.  This is classic censorship of the worst sort.  Worse than that, no one was embarrassed nor apologized for pulling this stunt.

 

Colleagues I spoke to were appalled. None of them had ever heard of a paper in any field being disappeared after formal publication. Rejected prior to publication? Of course. Retracted? Yes, but only after an investigation, the results of which would then be made public by way of explanation. But simply disappeared? Never. If a formally refereed and published paper can later be erased from the scientific record and replaced by a completely different article, without any discussion with the author or any announcement in the journal, what will this mean for the future of electronic journals?

 

Meanwhile, Professor Wilkinson had now widened her existing social media campaign against the Intelligencer to include attacks on the NYJM and its editorial staff. As recently as April of this year, she was threatening Facebook friends with ‘unfriending’ unless they severed social media ties with Rivin.

 

Summers, the head of the University of Chicago where my father taught more than half a century ago, was awarded ‘America’s Best University President’ in the past, he sided with the crazy feminists and told the professor to jump in a lake of fire, censorship is fine with him.

 

The removal of the article and replacing it with something utterly different was said to be ‘exercising THEIR academic freedom’ by allowing them to commit fraud and censorship.  Professor Hill, after being hammered into the ground by angry Maoist feminists is so tormented by being part of academia, he then tries to show us all, he is a pro-feminist liberal:

 

Over the years there has undoubtedly been significant bias and discrimination against women in mathematics and technical fields. Unfortunately, some of that still persists, even though many of us have tried hard to help turn the tide. My own efforts have included tutoring and mentoring female undergraduates, graduating female PhD students, and supporting hiring directives from deans and departmental chairs to seek out and give special consideration to female candidates. I have been invited to serve on two National Science Foundation gender and race diversity panels in Washington.

 

HAHAHA.  He still clings to the fiction that women are locked out of science and other difficult fields due to discrimination!  I used to teach at a tech school.  First year, no female students joined the young men in our machine shop.  Soon, women came in and joined in the fun.  Anyone can learn how to run technical machines!

 

Why give special treatment?  This makes women weaker, not stronger.  And it is obvious that raging females running around at our schools, are not shy, they are extremely aggressive and even utterly out of control and worse, even physically violent!  Far from being wilting violets, they are raging cows (a joke here).

 

They stomp on anyone who has any information that contradicts their lies.  The drop out rate from fields dominated by men isn’t sexism at work, it is young ladies who try the hard sciences and then who decide they hate it and they run off to easier fields of study which litter all our schools.  Here are some comments from shocked readers of this article:

 

Yes, we are seeing this in the news but not mainstream media…of course.  The same lunatics running schools also run much of our media.  This flood of hysterical anti-sane material is being rejected by more and more people.  This is why alternative information systems are now under sustained attack, too.

 

Censorship is immense and the DNC power people are pushing for heavy censorship forever so their world view will be the only view: this is pure Maoism.