Misinformation III: The response from academics to plagiarism allegations proves my points
Misinformation III: The response from academics to plagiarism allegations proves my points
In which I argue that the "misinformation crisis" is best solved by increasing institutional trust and highlight how academics are actively working AGAINST this
“And any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king at all.”
These are the words Tywin Lannister says to his Grandson, King Joffrey Baratheon in the TV Series Game of Thrones (as well as the ASOIAF books). This exchange occurs as Joffrey, in a fit of rage at having his authority questioned, insists on his royal status by declaring, “I am the King!”. Tywin’s response subtly conveys that true power and respect cannot be simply declared; they must be earned and acknowledged by others. This concept, although originally pertaining to political power in the series, can be extended to any form of authority, including intellectual authority. At the moment, academia is facing a crisis in public trust and reacting much like Joffrey did. If Tywin were to talk to academics today, he could say: “And anyone who must say 'I am an intellectual authority' is not intellectual authority at all.”
But…What does this have to do with misinformation studies?
In my last post I argued that the spread of false narratives (the so-called misinformation crisis) is first and foremost an issue of declining institutional trust. I identified a decrease in trust in universities as the major factor that needs to be addressed by those concerned about the proliferation of patently false narratives. Summarised here:
Most of us do not have time to carefully go over all the topics that might be of interest, so we have to rely on authorities that we trust. So this is where having robust institutions that do their best to get at the truth and elicit trust in the population comes into play.
Instead of inventing new red herring fields, academics do have the option of actually fighting such brute misinformation in an efficient way. And that is by enhancing trust in our knowledge-generating institutions (academia & media) among the general public. If academia (for anti vax) and media (for stolen election) had higher levels of trust, these narratives wouldn’t have been so prevalent. The real threat to our informational ecosystem is the plummeting confidence in higher education institutions that we see in the American public, as illustrated for example by this Gallup survey.
Of course, academics are not really clamouring to do the hard work of building institutional trust. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite! Much like Joffrey Baratheon, they are throwing tantrums and declaring themselves Kings, instead of doing the hard work of gaining respect. A lot of them have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that putting some stamp of disapproval on things they do not agree with will magically make people who increasingly no longer respect them trust those stamps. The “I am King!” declaration turned into “This is misinformation! I have a PhD!”
In my previous discussion, I didn't delve into the specific actions by academics that contribute to eroding trust in academic institutions. Fortunately (or not- depending on how you see it), a recent situation provides a pertinent example. This involves the academic community's response to plagiarism allegations against Claudine Gay, the President of Harvard. I am not really going to comment a lot on the substantive point here: suffice to say that with the information I have at this point, I probably agree with this recent NYT opinion piece on the topic. My focus is more on academia's handling of these serious and seemingly credible accusations against a leading figure in one of America's most prestigious universities. This reaction, I believe, exemplifies the attitudes fostering distrust in university institutions.
Let’s take for example the reaction of Harvard Law Professor (!!!) Charles Fried, and what he is declaring for the NYT. In the same paragraph he complains the accusations against Gay have the role of eroding trust in institutions by exposing their double standards AND argues for applying double standards based on which side of the political aisle accusations come from! What is even the point of being a Law Professor if you’re not gonna stand up for some basic principles of impartiality? If you’re concerned this attack erodes trust in elite institutions, don’t you see how your actions cause this erosion?
A lot of people are pointing out that we should treat accusations from clearly politically motivated people with caution. Yes, we should! But I am not arguing anyone has to blindly trust what people like Rufo (an activist who first brought to light the accusations) say about Gay. These are factual claims that can be verified independently - no need to bring politics into the mix. “Is President Gay violating the Harvard plagiarism code?” is a relatively straightforward question, and it really does not matter a lot who flagged that she might have committed plagiarism in the first place.
I was initially skeptical of the claims myself! Indeed, when Rufo first posted the accusations, I was tweeting that I think this is more technicality than substance and he should drop it. At the time, the evidence I had seen was simply her forgetting to add quotes but clearly indicating the authors of the phrases/ideas she was using.
Since then, evidence of potentially more extensive misdemeanour has been brought to light and I have changed my opinion. It seems like entire sentences have been copied without attribution, which is a much more substantial concern. Note that nothing apart from the facts presented to me has changed: the political context is the same. I have changed my mind when the information I had available changed. It’s really not that hard and academics would do well to emulate this attitude instead of throwing tantrums and complaining people are falling for misinformation.
While I agree with much of what you say I think a critical part of restoring trust in academia is keeping focused on the fact that what it's supposed to be doing is producing and evaluating ideas. Plagarism standards are just a means to that end.
So what if grad students share a description of a methodology. Indeed, all the better if they aren't wasting their time rewriting it.
The concern with plagarism is when it either prevents us from tracking a claim down to the original evidence (not relevant here) or when it undermines our ability to evaluate who should get the next grant or job. In this case I don't see the sentence copying as doing either.
I see it as no different than if a husband and wife came up with the wording in a paper together and they choose to just submit it under one name. As long as they aren't trying to mislead people about future productivity who cares. It's not a test in school. Research is the end goal.
Sure, she should have been more careful given what standards are but this isn't a big deal. It's all the academics publishing results they've p-hacked to find an effect or who don't really think an argument is convincing who have engaged in the real ethical breech.
At this point, shouts of misinformation seem more like in-group pandering than any genuine attempt at refuting an opposing viewpoint. Much less an attempt to convert those with the opposing views.