Noah Carl fights back after dismissal from Cambridge
Dr. Noah Carl is a young, conservative academic whose existence was relatively anonymous before he became the target of the illiberal intelligentsia and later lost his research position at Cambridge University. Now, he’s over halfway to his crowdfunding target to take the university to task for its cowardly dismissal.
Last November, Carl was chosen out of 943 candidates for the prestigious Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmunds College, part of Cambridge University. Carl, who grew up in idyllic Cambridge in an academic family—both his parents are architectural scholars—lost his position in May, after 1,400 academics denounced his views and his work in a letter published a few months ago: “A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race,’ ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed.”
We are deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge. This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented. Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. In a context where the far-right is on the rise across the world, this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.
These alarmist claims could easily be refuted, and were, both by Carl in this FAQ and by several notable academics, like Cass R. Sunstein and Jonathan Haidt, who wrote in a piece by Quillette that “the “open letter” denouncing Carl is just a list of vague assertions and charges of guilt by association. If the signers think we should condemn anyone who gives ammunition to “extremist and far right media,” they should write a new letter condemning themselves.”
Reading the letter, you would be forgiven to think that Carl must hold suspect views on race and that his work furthers a racist agenda. But his “crimes” weren’t nearly as sinister, although he has studied links between population groups and crime, as in this paper on how British stereotypes of different groups of immigrants correlate to the types of crimes they commit. He has also defended the right of academics to research the correlation between IQ and different population groups, but not partaken in this type of research himself.
After an investigation by the college and months of protests, Carl, who has a PhD in Sociology, was dismissed on May 1:
The poor scholarship of this problematic body of Dr Carl’s work, among other things, meant that it fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech. The panel found that, in the course of pursuing this problematic work, Dr Carl had collaborated with a number of individuals who were known to hold extremist views. There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the College into disrepute.
This cowardly stance, full of virtue-signalling buzzwords and accusations of guilt by association, shows how the protection of the perceived status of the college takes precedence over what a university is meant to foster, namely knowledge and truth. Knowledge isn’t racist; it’s neutral. It’s not up to the academic to decide how that knowledge will be used, but simply to offer his or her research. If there is a correlation between crime and different population groups, surely that knowledge deserves to be taken seriously, rather than swept under the carpet? Ignoring facts doesn’t solve anything. Just look to Sweden, where a crime wave—including numerous explosions, no less – among certain parts of the immigrant population has become an open secret, yet is still dismissed by the left, to see where going down that road will take us.
How did thought control and condemnation of wrongthinkers, rather than open inquiry and respect for different viewpoints, become an obsession for academics in the humanities departments? By now, we’re almost becoming used to countless deplatformings of speakers and rescindments of scholars, such as the appalling treatment of Dr Jordan B. Peterson only a few months ago. The left wing types dominate the social sciences, a trend which started in the 1960s, as Carl himself has pointed out—less than 12% of academics lean right in British universities, compared with 50% of the population— and with the increasingly polarized public debate, their authoritarian streak is becoming more obvious. “There is no such thing as free speech” is the excuse they espouse, but they forget conveniently that THEY are very free to hound whomever THEY disagree with, and THEIR views—those of the liberal elite, who preach for open borders, endless genders, and all the other politically correct causes—are usually met with acclaim. Whereas conservative views – such as being a Brexiter, like Carl—are mocked and vilified.
“This isn’t about whether you agree with my research or my political views,'” Carl told Toby Young in an interview for the Spectator. “This is about protecting freedom of speech, and standing up to the activists who are trying to control our universities. (…) Let’s show St Edmund’s College that they can’t get away with this.’
Carl told me in an email that he hopes to continue to publish scientific articles and will continue to read around in the literature. His advice to young academics is to apply to an institution that has a reputation for upholding free speech and open inquiry. “So far as the UK is concerned, Oxford has shown itself to be much better in this regard than Cambridge. In the US, I understand that Chicago has a good track-record,” says Carl. His best advice? “Never apologize for anything unless you genuinely believe you did wrong.”
Carl says a possible way forward to increase viewpoint diversity may involve online universities, which Jordan Peterson has advocated, or withholding public funding for universities that refuse to comply with free speech. It could also involve collective defense agreements to preempt attacks by activists, he added.
I don’t think that even as recent as five or ten years ago we could have predicted, with any gravitas, that freedom of speech would come under attack in our liberal democracies. In Britain, as in the rest of the modern world, free thought and the expression of it has resulted in countless advances in science and culture, and ever since John Stuart Mill defended freedom of speech in On Liberty in 1859:
In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.
This has echoed in every generation since. We have all tended to agree that silencing opinion is wrong, regardless of the opinion’s truthfulness, because when truth collides with error, knowledge arises. This “marketplace of ideas” has been a long standing pillar on which our society is built. When it crumbles, we’re in trouble. And more and more evidence is piling up pointing to this fundamental value being eroded, bit by bit. It is dissidents like Carl who are the heroes in this climate of coercion. I, for one, support Carl in his quest for justice and wish him a fulfilling and interesting career in the years to come.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has launched a Title IX investigation against Georgetown University to formally determine if the school’s women-only programs violate Title IX. The OCR, however, has declined to look into the feminist professor whose tweet about Brett Kavanaugh triggered the investigation in the first place.
Title IX—a federal law that threatens to revoke funding for schools found guilty of discriminating “on the basis of sex”—was initially implemented in 1972 to fight for women’s equality in U.S. universities.
Over the past few years, advocates for boys and men have begun challenging the law’s precedents to fight for more resources for male college students. Since 56% of college students are now women, some are arguing that young men are neglected.
Kursat Pekgoz, 31, is one of the key activists who pioneered this approach. In early 2018, Pekgoz filed a federal complaint against the University of Southern California, alleging that USC’s female-only programs discriminate against men.
The complaint—initially dismissed by the San Francisco Office—was reinstated upon Pekgoz’s appeal to the U.S. federal government. This precedent inspired a wave of activism across the nation.
During the Brett Kavanaugh hearing in Sept. 2018, Georgetown Professor C. Christine Fair tweeted that white men who support Kavanaugh deserve “miserable deaths.” Because of this, Pekgoz later wrote the Title IX complaint against Georgetown.
“Look at all the entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement,” tweeted Fair. “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”
Fair’s comments caught Pekgoz’s attention.
“She cannot be expected to teach her male students in a fair manner, and her presence creates a hostile environment against young male students,” Pekgoz wrote in his missive to OCR.
Georgetown has at least 18 programs that violate Title IX, he alleged.
“Georgetown has a very large number of female-only programs, even though women are the majority of students at Georgetown. Christine Fair’s comments supplied an additional incentive to write the complaint,” Pekgoz said by phone Friday.
According to an October 2019 letter, the OCR agreed to investigate numerous Georgetown programs and scholarships to determine if they truly do violate Title IX.
These include the school’s policy of affirmative action hiring for women, seven programs that exclude men, and numerous opportunities and scholarship programs that exclude men, according to the OCR.
But Pekgoz says the letter highlights the OCR’s “hypocrisy.”
Pekgoz notes that the OCR declined to investigate Georgetown’s Women’s Studies Department, based on the claim that Title IX does not allow the OCR to review curricula.
However, the OCR has previously interfered with curricular materials under Title IX before, Pekgoz says. The OCR is also “currently micromanaging” the curricular materials of Middle Eastern Studies under Title VI, a very similar law, Pekgoz argued.
The OCR also declined to investigate Professor Fair, whose tweets triggered the complaint.
“The letter does mention Professor Fair, even though she called for the mass-murder of white men and the desecration of their bodies. OCR’s bureaucrats would have reacted with swift retribution if Fair called for mass-violence against any other ethnic class such as Blacks, Muslims, or Jews” Pekgoz told The Post Millennial.
As I previously reported, Professor Fair also ran a Tumblr blog to doxx men who sent her hate mail. She made 11 full-on doxxing posts (which included full names, addresses, and phone numbers), and hundreds of other partial doxxing posts.
Tumblr de-platformed Fair soon after, citing a violation of the site’s community guidlines against terrorism and harassment. But after Georgetown gave her paid leave for a few months, Professor Fair has resumed teaching at the school.
While Pekgoz wrote the Title IX complaint itself, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) took charge of filing the complaint against Georgetown University and answering follow-up questions from the OCR.
Harry Crouch, President of NCFM, said that he and his team are hopeful.
“It took a year almost to the day to get a response, but we are very excited that the OCR will investigate significant parts of our complaint. We are hopeful they will rule in our favour, and consequently, Georgetown will become much more male-friendly,” he said.
“We would like to thank Kursat Pekgoz for doing the initial research and draft of this complaint. … We are excited that OCR found sufficient substance to investigate many of our concerns,” he added.
Marc Angelucci—an attorney and NCFM board member—told TPM that the OCR is taking steps in the right direction.
“It’s about time the Department of Education finally looks at discrimination against men. Title IX is not gender-specific. It applies to men too. But the last administration didn’t seem to think so. All we want is fairness and justice,” Angelucci told TPM.
Now that some Georgetown programs are under investigation, it’ll likely take a few months to a year for the OCR to reach a verdict.
Chinese tech giant Huawei tweeted on Monday regarding the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, calling her detainment “an unlawful and illegal act.”
The tweet links to a Globe and Mail article that goes over the moments leading up to Wanzhou’s arrest, but doesn’t provide any evidence her detainment was “unlawful” or an “illegal act”. The article is behind a paywall, so only subscribers can actually have access to the story and that it doesn’t match Huawei’s bold claims.
Reaction to the post from Canadians online was generally one of outrage.
Many replied to Huawei’s tweets, upset with the company’s audacity to complain about Wanzhou’s detention while two Canadians remain in Chinese prison, with another, Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, sentenced to death for drug trafficking charges.
Nowhere in the article does it explicitly state that the detention of Wanzhou was illegal, with the word “illegal” not appearing once. Rather, the article features details regarding America’s role in Meng’s arrest, with quotes from Chinese diplomats calling the arrest “unreasonable” due to the lack of notice from the Canadian side during her arrest.
“In accordance with the consular agreement between China and Canada, the Canadian side should inform the Chinese diplomatic missions in Canada immediately of its unreasonable detention of Ms. Meng Wanzhou,” said the Chinese embassy in a statement. “But the Canadian government failed to do that, the Chinese side first learned about the situation from other channels. We lodged stern representations with the Canadian side as soon as we learned about the relevant information.”
The Globe‘s article does note that those familiar with extradition practices call Meng’s arrest a “rare” incident, as Washington “typically pursues criminal charges for sanction violations against an individual rather than a corporation.”
“In a case like this one, where Ms. Meng is in all likelihood executing corporate policy, one would expect individuals not to be charged and the corporation would be fined,” said extradition expert Eric Lewis.
A new online poll conducted by the Canadian Press has shown that Andrew Scheer has less than 50 percent support from Canadians who self-identify as Conservatives, according to CKOM.
Just 48 percent of Conservative supporters say they want Andrew Scheer to continue as leader. 40 percent want him to resign, while 12 percent remain undecided.
This comes as another bad news story for the Conservative leader who will require a far greater majority in his leadership review in April of next year. The precedent in Candian politics is that leaders who undergo reviews should receive a much higher portion of the vote than just 50 percent.
Stephan Harper, for example, won over 85% of the vote in his leadership review after his 2004 election loss. It has been broadly considered that 75 percent of the vote is the bare minimum for an incumbent leader to continue his tenure.
The survey was conducted from Nov. 15-25 and over 3,000 Canadians participated.
Recently, Andrew Scheer has received significant pressure from the Conservative base to resign. This criticism previously derived from the Red Tory faction of the party when Peter MacKay and Rona Ambrose criticized his leadership.
Peter MacKay, for instance, declared that issues like abortion and immigration “hung round [Scheer’s] neck like a stinking albatross.” MacKay went on to say that this election was like “having an open net and missing the net.”
Another prominent Conservative politician, Ed Fast, who served in Harper’s cabinet as the trade secretary, declined a position in Scheer’s cabinet, saying that the leader needed someone who “fully supports” his leadership.
Soon after, the Globe and Mail reported that the social conservative wing of the party had begun to abandon Scheer. One former Conservative MP, Brad Trost, said in the article that “A lot of social conservatives have no interest whatsoever in backing Andrew Scheer.”
Last week, Scheer suffered another setback after a third-party organization was created by a group of prominent figures within the Conservative movement. This group, Conservative Victory, is devoted entirely to the ousting of Scheer.
McGill University sent out an email to its students stating that their student government’s decision to prosecute a Jewish student for attending a Hillel-sponsored trip to Israel and Palestine fosters “a culture of ostracization.”
This is in reference to a case where Jordyn Wright, a Jewish student at McGill and a Board of Director of its Student Society (SSMU), was personally targetted by SSMU for attending a trip to Israel and Palestine.
The motion that was presented in SSMU’s council meeting on November 28th explicitly singled out Jordyn. Furthermore, the SSMU President Bryan Buraga also introduced amendments that only pertained to Jordyn and none of the other BoD going on the trip.
“I am outraged and disgusted, but not surprised. This is not the first time that Jewish students at McGill have been bullied out of student government,” Jordyn exclaimed in a Facebook post.
“If I do not resign, I am being implicitly threatened with impeachment upon my return,” said Jordyn. “I have been the subject of thinly-veiled and blatant anti-Semitism.”
A copy of the email was received by The Post Millennial.
The email was sent out on behalf of Fabrice Labeau, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) of McGill Univerity, and emphasizes “freedom of speech” while saying McGill “is also committed to maintaining a respectful environment for all members of [its] community.”
“The motion approved by the SSMU Legislative Council purposely singles out an individual member of SSMU,” reads the email.
“Despite the SSMU Board of Directors previously assessing that enrolling in this program does not constitute a conflict of interest, the Legislative Council has nonetheless decided to overturn this decision by mandating its Board of Directors to start a procedure to remove this individual from the SSMU Board of Directors, should this individual choose to go on the trip.”
The email further adds that the “decision made by the SSMU Legislative Council is contrary to the University’s values of inclusion, diversity and respect.”
It goes on to say that it also diverges from SSMU’s own Constitution and represents a “very serious breach of trust.”
“For that reason, we call upon the SSMU Board of Directors to seriously consider the concerns raised by students and take proper action.”
The email was sent in English and French to all members of the McGill staff, and all students at the university.