Noah Carl
We live at a time where academic freedom is under threat from ideologues and activists of all persuasions. The latest threat comes from St Edmund's College, Cambridge, where administrators appear to have capitulated to a mob of activists (students and academics) who mounted a campaign to have a young scholar fired for "problematic" research. The back-story was covered by Quillette last December.

The norms of academia-which have been built up and preserved by institutions such as Cambridge for centuries-demand that academics engage with each other in a scholarly manner. That is, if one academic has a problem with the methods or conclusions of another's research, he or she should address those concerns within journals, according to established procedures, which other scholars can then read and respond to, including the academic whose research is being challenged.

Today, due to the hyper-specialisation of academic fields, most academics will not be able to judge the quality of scholarship that is published in journals outside their field. That's why when research is peer-reviewed it is done by experts in the specific field in which the research was carried out, not by a random selection of university professors. Just as a professor of English will not be able to judge a study conducted within chemical engineering, a chemical engineer will not be able to assess a scholarly essay on Shakespeare's sonnets.


To judge the quality of Dr Noah Carl's work authoritatively, one would have to be an expert in at least one of the following fields: psychology, intelligence research (a sub-field of psychology), and/or economics. The campaign against him began with an 'open letter' that was signed by hundreds of academics, but they did not have expertise in these areas. (For the most part, they had qualifications in fields like anthropology, gender studies and critical race studies). This is a clear departure from the established norms that, until recently, were adhered to in academic debates, a point made in an editorial about this affair by the executive team at the Heterodox Academy:
Communal inquiry and debate are at the heart of the academy. As researchers, we put our ideas into the crucible of open inquiry and rely on debate and discussion to refine understanding and advance solutions to complex problems. The practice of issuing open letters attacking scholars for their contributions undermines this important goal by evicting academics and their ideas from the arena-often on flimsy evidentiary grounds. More constructive responses can and should be employed.
The administrators at St Edmund's College who determined that Dr Noah Carl should be fired did not have qualifications in these areas, either. The Master of St. Edmunds is a former banker, and the administrator who led the investigation that decided Dr Carl is guilty of "poor scholarship" is a veterinary scientist.

Admittedly, one does not have to be an expert in a specific field to adjudicate on matters of academic misconduct such as fraud or data fabrication - and Dr Carl has been accused of "ethical breaches". But the statement by the Master on the college website justifying Dr Carl's dismissal stops short of alleging anything close to academic fraud. The sin he's been found guilty of-his "ethical breach" - is carrying out "problematic" research, such as producing a paper on the accuracy of consensual stereotypes about the characteristics of different groups (e.g. sexes, races, nationalities). Here is the key passage in the Master's statement:
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.
So Dr Carl has been dismissed, not because his research is fraudulent or inaccurate, but because there's a risk it could lead indirectly to bad actors promoting views that could incite racial or religious hatred. It matters not whether the scholarship is true; the critical thing is whether it upsets people.

Universities like Cambridge proudly resisted these assaults on intellectual freedom in the past-it was the home of such free thinkers as Erasmus, Charles Darwin and John Maynard Keynes. Indeed, protecting scholars from persecution by political and religious pressure became one of the defining purposes of the world's great universities.

Imagine what would happen if the behaviour of St Edmund's College become a new norm. Should philosophers who debate issues of euthanasia and abortion be fired because some Christian students might find their work offensive? Should novelists like Salman Rushdie be refused a platform because their work could incite religious hatred? Should geneticists who discover differences in populations emerging from genetic ancestry be fired because some students might be offended by these findings? Should biologists who operate on the assumption that sex is bimodal be defunded because some trans rights activists might find their work upsetting? The list of scholars who could be fired if the standard that has been applied to Dr Noah Carl is applied universally is endless.

The editors at Quillette steadfastly support the foundational principles of open inquiry and free thought. While we are not academics, we are gravely concerned that an injustice to a young scholar has occurred in this particular instance, and that more broadly, academic freedom is buckling under the political pressure as typified by the original open letter calling for his sacking. If the custodians of Cambridge are unable to protect its distinguished history and foundational principles, it is up to all of us to take a stand in support of them.