.⁦⁩ has argued that universities are in conflict about whether truth or social justice should be their lodestar. Here is an example of the phenomenon—and an argument that truth should prevail.
"Lots of people recognized for giving the world something of great value were bad people... Truth... is the morally superior telos for academia" A provocative riff on 's arguments about the central purpose of universities
In the modern academic system, citing something both acknowledges the work and enhances the author’s career. We have bound those things tightly together. Acting as if anybody who is troubled by that is insufficiently committed to Truth is just facile
I think is right here; the relevance or importance of a particular piece of work doesn't depend on the person who did it being good. (Not that if what the person did was particularly bad, it should be ignored)
"Lots of people recognized for giving the world something of great value were bad people. What’s the point in denying their contributions to their field, perhaps the only good that they ever offered others?" asks
"If a poetry editor deprives the world of an excellent poem on moral grounds... then that editor communicates that he doesn't quite believe in his field’s importance," says
It seems wants the truth, and he thinks you can handle it
Here's a very thoughtful piece from explaining what's wrong with this. (4)
Truth vs. Social Justice: Academic recognition shouldn’t hinge on a scholar’s moral character via
Should we still cite the scholarship of wrongdoers?
Should we still cite the scholarship of wrongdoers?
Truth verse justice in academia. Should you refuse to cite the research of sexual harassers and sexists?