[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.