The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
An Embarrassing Letter on Current Events from Academic Social and Personality Psychologists
The letter, which as of this writing has over 200 hundred signatories, starts off like this:
Social and Personality Psychologists on Student Protests for Justice in Palestine
We are a group of faculty from various demographic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds who are trained in the methods and practice of social and personality psychology. Although there are no doubt many topics on which we disagree, we are united in this call to listen to, engage with, and protect our students as they protest the mass killings of Palestinian civilians—which the International Court of Justice of the United Nations determined "could amount to genocide."
The words in quotations do not appear in the ICJ's opinion. The closest the Court comes to saying anything like that is to say that "at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention." The Court, however, made no finding as to whether South Africa's allegations were true, and the Genocide Convention bars actions that are not "genocide," such as incitement to genocide. The only time the words "amount to genocide" without the "could" appear in the opinion is in the court's summary of South Africa's allegations.
It says a lot about the decline of intellectual integrity in academia that so many are willing to sign a statement without due diligence to ensure that what they are signing is accurate, and that whomever drafted the letter either did not bother to check that the letter was accurate, or knew it was inaccurate but did not care.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The words in quotations to not appear in the ICJ's opinion."
"DO" not appear. I do this typo myself frequently.
Its "Social and Personality Psychologists", you expect anything else?
I just wonder when the alchemists and phrenologists will weigh in with letters.
There’s a fun bit from a Q and A session after Jordan Peterson gave a talk to the Oxford Union covering inter alia sex differences in personality, a while back.
The students though obviously mostly lefty were polite so it was an interesting and engaging discussion.
Anyway Peterson had just answered one question by explaining some research which showed – most surprisingly – that sex differences in personality are larger the more sex-egalitarian the society. eg wider personality sex differences in Sweden than in India.
Which is of course kryptonite for the theory that sex differences in personality are the result of social and cultural pressure to conform to gender norms. If that were the case the results should be the other way round.
But at the end he starts to head off a predictable objection at the pass saying (roughly) – you may say “hold on that result is bound to be based on the research of all the right wing psychologists” but in fact all the researchers in all these studies are on the left, these are inconvenient findings for them, but they’ve reported their results honestly as good researchers should; concluding with a bit of comedy – which at last gets within hailing distance of Bob’s point :
“All the right wing psychologists are in this room. Sitting in this chair.”
What metric do you use for 'sex differences?'
Number of penises, I believe 🙂
But all of these personality test things are done with self report questionnaires, so I doubt the people doing the surveys are requiring participants to drop their pants.
The only part they got right was there is genocide. But it has been committed by Hamas and not Israel. Oct 7 slaughter, hiding behind women and children in Gaza and preventing residents in Gaza from escaping and withholding food from them.
Hamas, unlike Israel, would like to commit genocide. But 10/7 was not genocide.
They did the "best" they could with the manpower / weapons / time they had. If given the chance, they'll do "better" (to the applause of "anti-Zionists" worldwide).
If that was genocide, then why quibble at calling the tens of thousands killed by the IDF genocide?
They must be listened to, engaged with, because otherwise they will be psychologically damaged just from being ignored? To say nothing about being shat upon verbally? Like they do to the other side.
If one wants to say have a welcome, peaceful discussion, welcome to the club. The above amounts to “treat them kindly, so tender their cri de coeur."
Do the signatories have tenure? Tenure committees take note.
This will get them tenure.
From an academic research paper re: British reaction to the Dreyfus Affair: "[The British ambassador's] overall conclusion was that 'France in general is off its head'..."
Did it matter to millions of Frenchmen that Alfred Dreyfus was actually innocent? No.
Today on U.S. college campuses there're tons of students (and, apparently, faculty) who're similarly "off their heads" and don't care about the actual truth.
I wonder: is the fact that both of these instances of public hysteria involved antisemitism merely coincidental? Probably not...
So what is the truth? Are several million Palestinian non-combatant citizens _not_ being held against their will by the Israeli military?
I'm certainly willing to listen to the "truth" -- and am even willing to change my own definition of genocide. But, so far, the truth is that Israel has murdered thousands in a quest for what it -- and it alone --considers justice and peace.
Thank God that only 23% of Americans (down from 36% in March) believe the Israeli crap.
"Are several million Palestinian non-combatant citizens _not_ being held against their will by the Israeli military?"
Preventing an invasion isn't usually characterized as "being held against their will", and the Jordanian and Egyptian military are just as guilty.
That's a yes, they are being held against their will.
They have a border with Egypt. They should just go there.
And remember, lefties like this use Hamas as their source so Hamas fighters also count as "civilians" in their warped view.
Correct. They are free to go wherever they want, if they can find someplace willing to take them.
I guess they could go to the locations Israel described as safe and directed them to, but Israel kills them there, too.
I wonder: is the fact that both of these instances of public hysteria involved antisemitism merely coincidental? Probably not…
No, it's because one made you remember the other, hahaha. Not a coincidence, but also not even a correlation.
Harumph! Harumph!
No link to the actual letter? Wtf.
.
Do you ever read the "scholarship" published in Today in Supreme Court History at the Volokh Conspiracy?
Anyone from the Volokh Conspiracy bitching about due diligence is devoid of self-awareness and scholarly integrity.