Monday, September 21, 2009

The Academic Wall of Shame: A REVISION

No, I am not prepared to let it go. I want this episode to follow these academics around like a bad fart. Any academic, with even a modicum of self respect, knows that they shouldn't comment on topics which they cannot directly claim expertise or at least be able to verify as being factual. Moreover, every academic knows that there are certain factors that will disqualify the findings of a research project. Some of these factors include bias.

I have decided to rate the academics according to some key factors, to see if they are qualified to comment on the Brandon Huntley refugee claim. The rating is based on some key variables; race, gender, nationality and vocation. There is an automatic disqualification if you are not a white South African or a South African academic (as defined by being employed by a South African university in a teaching capacity). How could you possibly claim expertise on white South African persecution if you are non-white or non-South African? Thereafter, if your gender is not male, your rating is reduced. A rating is either a full 2 points, a reduced 1 point or zero.

The logic behind the rating is straightforward. Brandon Huntley made an application based on white racial persecution, involving crime and employment discrimination. This means that white males would be disproportionately affected, and hence why white males are best positioned to comment.

The Results

There are 142 claimed academics, which would result in a maximum score of 284 points.

32 academics are white males (64 points). So a mere 22.54% are qualified to comment on the basis of being white males. Does this mean they are knowledgeable in this field? We could unpack it even further, which would then disqualify the bulk of these academics.

28 academics are white females (28 points). A mere 19.72% which are qualified to comment on the basis of their whiteness only; apparently they were also previously oppressed and so receive relative employment advantages.

The remainder of the so called academics are disqualified either due to race, gender, nationality or vocation.

Therefore out of a maximum score of 284, a mere 92 points are somewhat qualified to deliver a comment; a mere 32.39% of the maximum score.

Significantly less than half of the academics that signed the Open Letter to the Canadian Authorities are qualified to endorse the claims made, and this excludes their area of expertise. This highlights a massive social agenda, on the part of the academics and exposes them as being frauds et al.

2 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

VI, it warms my heart to know that someone else is just as upset about these academics' poor judgement. It's great that you're not letting this go.

Anonymous said...

A good post VI and no, we must not let this go.