[david.garrett84]

It’s getting a lot worse, yet it’s a welcome sign that this younger academic has given the establishment the proverbial up yours.

“Pseudoscience” lol. Say the same people who don’t blink an eye at - and fund - papers supporting the idea of “rape culture”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyma...tings.html

Quote:

A Cambridge don who was sacked after being accused of publishing 'racist pseudoscience' says he lost his fellowship for questioning 'left-wing sacred values'.

Social scientist Noah Carl was let go from a fellowship at St Edmund's College last week, on the grounds that he allegedly collaborated with people who hold 'extremist views'.

His writings discussed genetics and IQ, as well as linking artistic tastes and opinions on Brexit to the decline of the humble British pub.

It was his writings linking IQ and genetics however, that prompted 586 academics to sign a letter to the prestigious institution, accusing him of 'racist pseudoscience'.

At a talk yesterday in Oxford he defended his stance and classed himself as a 'victim' after stating that studies he had uncovered from the 1960s and 2015 had a number of adverse effects on campus.

Setting out evidence on over-representation of left-wing views in British academia he said: 'Four studies found that in 1960 about a third of academics supported Conservatives and 45 per cent Labour. By 2015, 11 per cent supported the Conservatives and about 70 per cent Labour.

Prior to his talk on free speech in Oxford yesterday, he posted a blog defending his work, where he said that exploring a possible link between genes and intelligence was 'a perfectly defensible scientific position'.

He said: 'It may turn out that genes make zero contribution, or it may turn out that they make a contribution greater than zero. Deciding in advance that they make zero contribution is not science. It is proof by assertion.'

Mr Carl had been one of several speakers at the event who had been threatened with 'no platforming', lost jobs, or had invitations revoked due to views on issues ranging from free speech, race and gender, The Times reported.

In 2016 he wrote a paper in which he claimed that 'the higher the percentage of Muslims in the population, the greater the share of citizens susceptible to Islamist radicalisation'.