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:
The Ascent #StarTrek #DS9 Rewatch (Season 5, Episode 9) Odo and Quark bicker their way up ...
The daughter missed her graduation ceremony because she was performing in Kinetic Theatre'...
This was a rough term. Still have a winter term course to publish before midnight but time...
Couples in successful relationships always use these 6 phrases: 'You'll grow stronger both...
Students are trusting software like this to do their work.
‘People are rooting for the whale’: the strange American tradition of Moby-Dick reading ma...