As the hoaxers explained in Areo, they targeted fields they pejoratively dub “grievance studies” — “gender studies, masculinities studies, queer studies, sexuality studies, psychoanalysis, critical race theory, critical whiteness theory, fat studies, sociology, and educational philosophy” — which they consider peculiarly susceptible to fashionable nonsense. Does the hoax identify something uniquely rotten in gender and sexuality studies, or could it just as easily have targeted other fields? Is it a salutary correction or a reactionary hit job? And what does it portend for already imperiled fields? The Chronicle Review asked scholars from a variety of disciplines. Here are their responses. —Chronicle of Higher Education
Similar:
A crushing backlash to Apple’s new iPad ad
I’m still teaching journalism and my usual courses, but after 21 years I’ve stepped aside ...
Remnants of a Legendary Typeface Rescued From the River Thames
A quick Sunday visit to #fortligonier with my history-loving son.
So I’m starting a thing. Wish me luck. #blender3d #medieval #york #mysteryplay #corpuschr...
Yesterday my stack of unmarked assignments was about 120, so this is not bad.