Anecdote Regarding What Happens When You Challenge the Status Quo in Academia

An Opportunity to Make its Displeasure Known Government Pulls Funding of Pronoun Professor

TORONTO — University of Toronto psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson has had a federal research grant application denied for the first time in his long and distinguished academic career.

And he’s certain that the rejection from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the government agency that supports post-secondary research, is linked to the controversy surrounding his stand on gender-neutral pronouns such as “zie” and “zher,” and the modern notion of gender as being fluid.

That his application was also rated so poorly is telling, he said, meaning that if the proposal had just missed the mark, it might have been a credible critique, but the proposal failed abysmally. Julia Gualtieri, spokeswoman for the council, said in an email Monday that grants are awarded through a merit review process, and that “past funding is not a guarantee of further funding.” Names of the peer review committee members will be publicly posted once all applicants have been fully notified, she said.

Peterson sparked a free-speech furor last fall with YouTube videos about the dangers of the then-looming (and now law) federal Bill C-16, which included “gender identity” and “gender expression” in the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code.

He was immediately warned by the university “to stop repeating these statements” because they were purportedly inciting fear in the transgendered community.

And at the time, Peterson said he knew he was most vulnerable to attack in two areas — his grant funding and his licence as a clinical psychologist.

“I think that it’s (the controversy) provided someone with a convenient opportunity to make their displeasure with what I’m doing known,” he told Postmedia in a recent phone interview. “I can’t shake the suspicion.”

Nothing else has changed, he said: As usual, he has three top-calibre graduate students working with him; his “citation counts,” the number of times a work is cited by peers, are rapidly rising and have always been high.

It seems like that is what you get from Academia when you value 1st Amendment rights over PC nonsense. I find this very troubling. This is exactly why the PC movement is so wrong. This is a clear attempt to shut down alternative opinions.

This is really a reflection of our society and the recent trends on the left. If you do not follow the current line of thinking when the left shifts you tend to be labelled as a bigot and your opinion ceases to matter.

Its very troubling.

Firstly, they don't have 1st Amendment rights in Canada.

Secondly, so what? The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada sounds like a completely unnecessary bureaucracy. And what is he even researching? What does he need government money for? He'd be better off getting it from the private sector if it's so important.

terp said:

It seems like that is what you get from Academia when you value 1st Amendment rights over PC nonsense.

If only your geography prof had not been restrained by political correctness from teaching you that Toronto is in Canada.

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

terp said:

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

Is there an irony award on MOL?

Its not "our society" its "their society".  Canadians absolutely hate this sort of thing.

So, i can assume you fully support this attempt to get a respected professor in line.

Klinker said:

terp said:

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

Is there an irony award on MOL?

Its not "our society" its "their society". Canadians absolutely hate this sort of thing.

This is such a stretch. Previous awardees are rejected for continuation funding all the time. Universities are more money grubbing now than they have ever been and are requiring professors to apply for more grant funding, increasing the competition. And many grants allow not-for-profits to apply, some of which retain professional grant writers. The last grant I applied for had zero universities as the winners, as all awards went to not-for-profit research firms.

Grant monies seems to be shrinking, while more applicants are jumping into all the pools. I was on a federal grant webinar with 200 attendees applying for 3 grant awards. Our district even applies for teeny tiny little grants which are only awarded to 10% of applicants with high-need students.

This article makes this guy sound like he has a combination of sour grapes with an attempt for publicity of his 'controversial' work. Freaking entitled professor.

terp said:

So, i can assume you fully support this attempt to get a respected professor in line.

Klinker said:

terp said:

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

Is there an irony award on MOL?

Its not "our society" its "their society". Canadians absolutely hate this sort of thing.

Not my business what Canadians do with their grant money.

sprout said:

This is such a stretch. Previous awardees are rejected for continuation funding all the time. Universities are more money grubbing now than they have ever been and are requiring professors to apply for more grant funding, increasing the competition. And many grants allow not-for-profits to apply, some of which retain professional grant writers. The last grant I applied for had zero universities as the winners, as all awards went to not-for-profit research firms.

Grant monies seems to be shrinking, while more applicants are jumping into all the pools. I was on a grant webinar with 200 attendees applying for 3 grant awards. Our district even applies for teeny tiny little grants which are only awarded to 10% of applicants with high-need students.

This article makes this guy sound like he has a combination of sour grapes with an attempt for publicity of his 'controversial' work. Freaking entitled professor.

This is all true. If he had never had a grant denied in the past it sounds like he is LONG due for a denial. Academia is a dog fight over ever slimmer scraps. If an old dog gets fat, lazy and stupid, then he is going to have his dinner taken by an up and comer. Apologies to the sensitive types like Terp, but its a hard world.

No worries. I know you have taken the brave stance that its not your concern what Canadians do with their grant money. But humor me if you will. Please outline how this professor has gotten fat, lazy, and stupid.

Klinker said:

sprout said:

This is such a stretch. Previous awardees are rejected for continuation funding all the time. Universities are more money grubbing now than they have ever been and are requiring professors to apply for more grant funding, increasing the competition. And many grants allow not-for-profits to apply, some of which retain professional grant writers. The last grant I applied for had zero universities as the winners, as all awards went to not-for-profit research firms.

Grant monies seems to be shrinking, while more applicants are jumping into all the pools. I was on a grant webinar with 200 attendees applying for 3 grant awards. Our district even applies for teeny tiny little grants which are only awarded to 10% of applicants with high-need students.

This article makes this guy sound like he has a combination of sour grapes with an attempt for publicity of his 'controversial' work. Freaking entitled professor.

This is all true. If he had never had a grant denied in the past it sounds like he is LONG due for a denial. Academia is a dog fight over ever slimmer scraps. If an old dog gets fat, lazy and stupid, then he is going to have his dinner taken by an up and comer. Apologies to the sensitive types like Terp, but its a hard world.

terp said:

But humor me if you will. Please outline how this professor gotten fat, lazy, and stupid.

Lazy: "Nothing else has changed, he said".

Stupid: "In fact, he’s indisputably a great communicator: His education videos have been viewed by eight million people, and he’s popular on Twitter."

Fat: "...the last time, in 2012, was for the largest amount ever awarded to a psychologist."

Well, it's now 2017, and I know many federal grants in the USA have changed their topics and priorities from 5 years ago. And many grants aren't rated on the "h-index" here... in fact, they may be blind reviews.

LMAO. Is there a MOL award for talking out of your ***?

sprout said:

terp said:

No worries. I know you have taken the brave stance that its not your concern what Canadians do with their grant money. But humor me if you will. Please outline how this professor gotten fat, lazy, and stupid.

Lazy: "Nothing else has changed, he said".

Stupid: "In fact, he’s indisputably a great communicator: His education videos have been viewed by eight million people, and he’s popular on Twitter."

Fat: "...the last time, in 2012, was for the largest amount ever awarded to a psychologist."

Well, it's now 2017, and I know many federal grants in the USA have changed their topics and priorities from 5 years ago. And grants aren't rated on the "h-index" here, and, in fact, may be blind reviews.

I'm glad you are enjoying laughing at quotes from the article you posted. I just put them into your context.

I'm laughing at the attempt to pull quotes out of context from an article and frame them in a contrived way to disparage someone you know nothing about.

Why do we have to resort to such childish tactics. On some level you disagree with this guy? Yet you sit here and disparage him and you don't know anything about him.

He's on the other side! He must be torn down! He is guilty of the crime of thinking for himself and we will stop him with childish and superficial arguments.

Let me ask you a question. When an adult reads your nonsense and thinks about human nature: Do you think this person is more likely or less likely to believe the premise of the article?

What?

Dude, seriously -- I worked for someone just like that guy in the article. They got a wayyyy bigger grant than that guy and can't believe they can't pull in another grant. Not even a measly grant for just a few hundred thousand.

It must be politics! Or PC! Or someone is out to get us! I've heard all the excuses. And then I read the reviews on the rejection, and sometimes the reviewers have no clue, and sometimes the proposal was trying to squeeze their already-established research into a grant competition topic that didn't really fit.

Professors can get lucky once, but then no one cares that they have 10,000 pubs, or have a million followers on Twitter. They need to get over themselves. They're not the ultimate grant geniuses just because they got that 'biggest grant' once.

Canadian anecdotes get me riled up, too.

This is pretty thin gruel right here. The only "proof" of discrimination is the fact that the Prof thinks there is.

whoa! color me impressed.

Let's see. Rock Star Professor. Never been denied a research grant his entire career. Professor refuses to go along w/ gender unspecific pronouns and takes issue w/ the direction. He actually predicted this would happen. He is then denied.

Yet there's nothing to see here because sprout, who seems to know nothing about Peterson, knows a guy just like him. Sprout shows his/her work by taking a bunch of random comments out of context.

You're right. It's all above board.

PS Jesus Christ. You actually work on research grants and that is how you build your case?

terp said:

LMAO. Is there a MOL award for talking out of your ***?

I'll let them know you are interested in competing. In fact, I think a number of your posts may be award winning.

He's not the first. I mean Judith Curry, highly respected climatologist, was forced from her admin position at Georgia Tech for questioning the dogma. She ended up stepping down from her Professorship. I remember reading people critiquing her and trying to figure out why she wasn't playing ball.

That's the thing. If you can force out those that question the status quo, you can always follow that up with. "Everyone knows that ! Nobody respectable questions it. WTF is your problem?"

Thanks dude. I hope I don't lose points. I mostly snore out of it.

Klinker said:

terp said:

LMAO. Is there a MOL award for talking out of your ***?

I'll let them know you are interested in competing.

terp said:

Never been denied a research grant his entire career.

I question this assertion. How many federal grants has he applied for? Is this his second?

I know a number of people and NO ONE gets every grant they apply for. A track record like that would be evidence of corruption, not merit.

terp said:

He's not the first. I mean Judith Curry, highly respected climatologist, was forced from her admin position at Georgia Tech for questioning the dogma. She ended up stepping down from her Professorship. I remember reading people critiquing her and trying to figure out why she wasn't playing ball.

Curry is a professor emeritus who retired so that she could cash in as a professional climate change denier. She now provides "expert" testimony in exchange for fat right wing nutbucks.

Thank you for proving my point. This person knows more about the climate than you will ever kniw if you were granted 1000 lifetimes. Yet, she takes a position that goes against the dogma, and she's evil.

She was guilty of questioning the certainty of the models.

Klinker said:

terp said:

He's not the first. I mean Judith Curry, highly respected climatologist, was forced from her admin position at Georgia Tech for questioning the dogma. She ended up stepping down from her Professorship. I remember reading people critiquing her and trying to figure out why she wasn't playing ball.

Curry is a professor emeritus who retired so that she could cash in as a professional climate change denier. She now provides "expert" testimony in exchange for fat right wing nutbucks.

terp said:

Thank you for proving my point. This person knows more about the climate than you will ever kniw if you were granted 1000 lifetimes. Yet, she takes a position that goes against the dogma, and she's evil.

She was guilty of questioning the certainty of the models.

Klinker said:

terp said:

He's not the first. I mean Judith Curry, highly respected climatologist, was forced from her admin position at Georgia Tech for questioning the dogma. She ended up stepping down from her Professorship. I remember reading people critiquing her and trying to figure out why she wasn't playing ball.

Curry is a professor emeritus who retired so that she could cash in as a professional climate change denier. She now provides "expert" testimony in exchange for fat right wing nutbucks.

Has she also jumped on the flat-earth movement? It is very popular with pseudo contrarians.

Terp,

The only way to challenge the climate science on global warming is to present research that either overturns existing research or presents new, verifiable findings which that are counter to the consensus.

The minute you show us that research fitting the above criteria has been submitted , and rejected on spurious grounds, then you and the denialists will have a point.

Has Judith Curry done so?

Denying scientific findings without providing backing research is irresponsible "science", and it's valid to reconsider whether such a person should be filling a scientific post. Denying overwhelming consensus without providing sufficient evidence shows that you are more crank than scientist, and that appears to the the case with Curry.

terp said:

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

The point is that this guy deserves tons of free money from the government?

She has not "denied" the science. She doubted the certainty of the alarmist predictions. But, whatever it takes to tear down someone's reputation.

It seems that all you have to do to make claims like "All reputable scientists believe XXXX" is tear down the reputation of any scientists that don't go along with XXXX 100%.

drummerboy said:

Terp,


The only way to challenge the climate science on global warming is to present research that either overturns existing research or presents new, verifiable findings which that are counter to the consensus.

The minute you show us that research fitting the above criteria has been submitted , and rejected on spurious grounds, then you and the denialists will have a point.

Has Judith Curry done so?


Denying scientific findings without providing backing research is irresponsible "science", and it's valid to reconsider whether such a person should be filling a scientific post. Denying overwhelming consensus without providing sufficient evidence shows that you are more crank than scientist, and that appears to the the case with Curry.

I know the point you're trying to make, and you are completely missing the point. If there are going to be government grants(which for obvious reasons I think there shouldn't be) they should at least be equitable. I mean, that's the point from most leftists. The market will not invest in ideas in an equitable way, so let's have the government do it. Right?

But what when the government only likes investing in a certain spectrum of ideas?

ridski said:

terp said:

Interesting how adept the deluded are at missing the point.

The point is that this guy deserves tons of free money from the government?

terp said:

But what when the government only likes investing in a certain spectrum of ideas?

Um, the government often likes investing in a specific set of ideas.

For example the Department of Justice recent request for grant applications focuses on addressing Opioid abuse ( https://www.bja.gov/funding/CA...), and Bias crimes in another ( https://nij.gov/funding/Docume...).

The requests tend to change with the times. These topics are completely different from 2015 which had more of a focus on School Safety; or last year's competitions which focused more on smart policing, smart prosecuting, body cameras, and addressing the problem of an oversized prison population.