Meet The New APSA Editorial Team, George Orwell!

[For the second time in a week, reading a near-head-exploding ethics item right before bed has caused insomnia, necessitating this late-night post. My brain was already churning as I try to solve a work-related conundrum: this, I didn’t need. But this kind of stunning hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of integrity the nation and the world don’t need, either.]

Behold a recent announcement from The American Political Science Association. Read carefully, now:

APSA Announces the New Editorial Team for the American Political Science Review for 2020

The American Political Science Association is delighted to announce a new editorial team to lead the American Political Science Review (APSR).  The APSA Council selected a team co-led by twelve political scientists from many institutions across North America. The new team’s term begins on June 1, 2020 and runs through May 31, 2024.

  • Sharon Wright Austin, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida
  • Michelle L. Dion, Associate Professor of Political Science, McMaster University
  • Lisa García Bedolla, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate Division and a Professor in the Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley
  • Clarissa Rile Hayward, Professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Kelly M. Kadera, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa
  • Julie Novkov, Professor of Political Science and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY
  • Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, Associate Professor of Political Science, Purdue University
  • Dara Strolovitch, Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies and Politics, Princeton University
  • Aili Mari Tripp, Wangari Maathai Professor of Political Science and Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Denise M. Walsh, Associate Professor of Politics and Women, Gender, and Sexuality, University of Virginia
  • S. Laurel Weldon, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University 
  • Elisabeth Jean Wood, Crosby Professor of the Human Environment and Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Vision Statement by the Editors

We are honored to have been selected as the American Political Science Review’s new editorial team. We thank the APSA Council and the selection committee for their confidence in our team and for their support for our vision. In entrusting the editorship of the association’s flagship journal to our diverse and all-woman team, the Council is demonstrating its commitment to promoting a wider range of voices and scholarship in the journal and the discipline.

Notice anything strange? Ridiculous, mayhap? Babylon Bee-worthy, you might say?

It’s this: “our diverse and all-woman team.”

I recall that when I first read “1984,” it was the openly dishonest language girding the sinister foundation of Big Brother’s totalitarianism that was simultaneously unforgettable and, at the time, faintly absurd. Engraved on the walls of the The Party’s Ministry of Truth were the slogans,

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Point made, I thought, but come on. Even a nightmare totalitarian government wouldn’t try to get away with making such self-refuting statements.  George was over-reaching to make his point.

Then came “2019.”

I had just finished—I hope—debating on social media with a one-time friend who used to be intelligent and who was claiming—indignantly claiming—that there was no such thing as “reverse racism.” Outright denigration of whites based on their skin shade was not prejudice like the equivalent rhetoric denigrating blacks. Even when, as I discussed in yesterday’s warm-up, the entire population of whites is reduced by critics and activists to a monolithic, uniform, stereotype and a negative one, that’s not racist.

Yes, I’ve heard and read that idiocy before. It is Orwellian: insist that a false proposition is true so an entire range of unethical goals become not only possible but also appear reasonable, especially to the weak-minded and critical thinking-challenged. That technique is what permits a group of highly educated professionals to describe themselves as a “diverse and all-woman team.,” not only without ethics alarms going off, but without the usually far more sensitive “oh my god if this statement is made public we’ll be a laughingstock and lose all credibility” alarms splitting ear drums for miles around.

I’m trying to figure out now what the editors of the esteemed political science journal consider “diversity.” We know that an all male team of editors would not be diverse, correct? Presumably an all-white board would similarly not be diverse, as well as all-conservative, or all-Republican teams. However, if an all-female, 12-editor board qualifies as diverse, I assume that all-black, all LGTB, all Hispanic/Latino, all progressive, all Democrat—you know, the good types of people—can make up a “team” and still qualify as diverse. This  is 2019 Newspeak. Monopoly Is Diversity.

That an editorial board would introduce itself with such open rhetorical dishonesty precludes the Review from being trustworthy, does it not? Such brazen rejection of fact, truth and language in the service of progressive virtue-signaling has signature significance, correct? How can the analysis of political issues by a group that would sign off on such an Orwellian self-contradiction be good for anything but agitprop?

The irony is that an all-female editorial board might be excellent. Who cares about its demographics and component EEOC groups, if it is composed of the top minds in the field? I certainly don’t. Nobody should, except that progressive cant holds that “diversity” is more important than merit, excellence and competence. That’s nuts, but that’s what an entire end of the political spectrum preaches, indoctrinates and believes.

However, they can’t have it both ways. They can’t stack institutions (colleges, news organizations) with over 90% leftists, and still boast about being diverse….but they do. Now that blinding hypocrisy appears to be crossing the line into even more outrageous contradiction. Every management team, staff, and board of directors must be diverse, and the arbiters of diversity can define the term as they see fit and convenient at any given time. A 12-woman editorial staff is diverse, because they say it is.

Laugh at your own risk.

Big Brother is watching.

18 thoughts on “Meet The New APSA Editorial Team, George Orwell!

  1. These are the people who believe they are the smartest in any room, who are perfectly willing to tell you how to live with, likely, no adult time spent outside their academic bubbles. They are incapable of recognizing their folly.

    • There was a recent article about Harvard Law Professor Bruce Hay. He taught a class called “Judgement and Decision Making” at Harvard Law school. He got caught up in a paternity con by a lesbian and a transgender grad student. They took his money, his house, and got him suspended from his job. He never saw it coming because a lesbian and a transgender person would never lie.

    • Live in that bubble too long, and certain truths will bite you in certain bodily nether regions.

      Run off and denigrate the critical thinkers within your midst, and watch the premise of the movie ‘Idioacrasy’ come to pass within your lifetime in your organization.*

      “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

      *“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

      This is known as “bad luck.”

      -Robert Heinlein, author and sometime prophet

  2. Jack, Jack, Jack… How do you KNOW it’s an all-female team? How do you know that one – or more – of the appointees isn’t trans, and that within that the appellation “female” is plenty good enough? How white-patriarchal-hetero-cisnormative-LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ-phobic you are for even noticing.

    • Because genetics don’t care for your ‘feelz’ nor one’s decision that gravity does not work for you.
      When put to the test, laws of nature work every time they are tried.

  3. I think Orwell was pulling from actual Soviet absurdity. Communist/Socialist/Modernist philosophy is anti-realist. Its fundamental assumption is that previous civilizations weren’t strong as a result of the veracity of their core philosophical principles but that their core philosophical principles were forwarded and survive to today to some extent because of a supporting power structure. Therefore, the Greeks believed the law of non contradiction to be a cornerstone of all rational thought because they were made to, and we will believe an all-female, all-Democrat review board is diverse because we will be made to.

    Descending to a lower turtle, a populace forced to repeat obvious absurdities is intellectually demoralized. An educated populace is replaced with an obedient one. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the Soviets knew of this effect and employed it to great effect. Some Democrat echelon can’t not know this, so there are at least two tiers functioning in this political movement.

    That assumes the core, central, real principles have been passed down from the founders of the movement to its current operators. Imagine if the current crop isn’t in on the con! They’d just be moving about with dead eyes actually thinking they can will two opposed ideas into agreement. I wonder if that’s what happened to Venezuela. I wonder if that’s what happened to every socialist paradise that even managed to survive to the second generation…

    This assumes that the people who put these things together by playing to an underclass’s resentments, envy, and base physical gratification and make themselves all-powerful commanders of every corner of individuals’ lives are selfish, though. Of course, we can’t just leap to that assumption.

  4. “our diverse and all-woman team”

    An all women team is diverse? What the hell!

    “the Council is demonstrating its commitment to promoting a wider range of voices”

    An all women team is a commitment to a wider range of voices? What the hell!

    They’re LIARS and I think they’ve earned themselves the pompous asses of the year award.

    The references to 1984 are ominously accurate!

  5. It was more than a year ago that the city of Palm Springs extolled that every member of it’s “diverse” city were active members of the LGBT etc community and by looking at their photo op it was also all-white and middle-aged.

  6. Let’s face it, the word “diverse” has been mangled, as have “racist,” and “fascist,” and “White Supremacist,” and “immigrant,” among others. Diverse now simply means “not white or male or heterosexual but comprised of members of some real or constructed allegedly oppressed minority.” Thus, this editorial board is diverse insofar as it does not contain any men. It contains only women. Therefore, according to the new definition of “diverse,” it IS diverse.

      • For example, if a person is a Dean or Director of Diversity at a college or corporation, they are actually in charge of making sure members of various minority groups are present in sufficient numbers. They should be called Dean of Minority Representation or Director of Minority Representation. If some entity becomes staffed with all minority people, Nirvana has been achieved in terms of diversity, i.e., one hundred percent minority head count has been achieved. That is the omega of diversity, as currently defined. (I’ve just now figured this out. Du-oh!)

  7. “Diversity” is simply the term used by a disaffected group to shame the establishment of a target group. This buzz word allows the alienated party to weasel their way into any organization, take it over, and then remake it into their own image. The group of malcontents could care less what the definition of the word is or have any intent of implementing it. The word is merely an effective tool. Its usage is a trap, discriminatory, and it means ultimately the destruction of the targeted concern (usually thriving) and its leadership (usually white European males). People who use these words as a weapon will not show mercy or operate by traditional rules and norms. Emotions like gratitude and thankful are alien to the user. Other words in this same destructive arsenal are, but not limited to, “inclusion,” “welcoming,” “multicultural,” and “tolerant.”

  8. Reading the list, I thought the problem might be the number of positions where political science leadership was also grievance study leadership, I’d made it the entire list without actually keying in that all the names were women.

    Real talk: “Diversity” is a cult. The people pushing Diversity-laide at us say all kinds of self defeating, obviously untrue things. “Anyone else remember “Diversity is our Strength”? I said I’d believe that the moment women joined a football team, or someone with extreme learning deficiencies started designing rockets for NASA. Even the way they meant it…. Get a practicing Muslim, a hascidic Jew, a woman and a trans woman on the same team and pop some corn to watch just how strong that diversity is. “Diverse and all-x” is going on the shelf, because it’s golden. I don’t think they’re trying to snow us, I think they’re just that unaware.

    • Anyone else remember “Diversity is our Strength”? I said I’d believe that the moment women joined a football team, or someone with extreme learning deficiencies started designing rockets for NASA.

      When the Left says “strength,” it doesn’t mean what we think it means. Even an 0-10 football team is strong if it is diverse, because the tautology that is diversity says so.

  9. This is just the Big Lie writ small — that “diversity” that isn’t diverse is still diversity.

    Any diversity system that excludes white males is near perfect, because we all know that the new definition of diversity equals exclusion by force of disfavored races/classes.

  10. I’m stuck back at the idea that “political science” is to be considered actual science. You know, like chemistry, physics, biology, etc. So far it is lagging even alchemy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.