IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. This is why the cries of academic freedom and freedom of speech (made by the presidents in front of congress) rang hollow — it was obvious that if the free speech was made by other people, and targeted different groups, it would not have been countenanced.
> IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies.
But if it wants to make that point it should start by stating the point outright and then follow-on with some sort of supporting arguments.
The post brings up Dan Ariely's work that doesn't replicate. So far as I know there's no allegation that this was political -- just plain old self-interest.
The only thing it presents is an allegation about some history paper around metallurgy. Which just seems like a bitter association rather than an attempt at evidencing the claim that the majority of academic replication failure is political.
The more I reread this the more half-baked and rambly it seems.
For instance, MIT recently had a bunch of hate speech (against LGBTQ people) posted around campus. In response, MIT... defended the actions and encouraged students to post their own countermessages rather than take down the hateful posters: https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/recent-postering
If anything, MIT has been more forceful in setting limits on pro-Palestinian demonstrations than on anti-LGBTQ speech.
Haha what? this is the best example you can find? Those "anti LGBTQ" flyers were satirical attacks _from the left_ on the recently adopted MIT free speech policy.
First of all, the posters were not obviously satirical (as evidenced by the letter I linked). The intent of the posters only matters if you think MIT left the posters up because they had a leftward intent but a rightward message. But MIT made their decision before knowing the identity or politics behind the posters.
This isn't the only example, but it is one that straightforwardly shows that MIT is consistent with regards to its free speech policies.
You accuse me of arguing dishonestly. Instead, why don't you present your evidence that MIT has acted against its policy in an official capacity?
