Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proceedings Start Against Portland State University Professor Whose Carefully Crafted Fiction Helped Expose the Rot Within Some Sectors of Modern Academia

Posted by msmash on from the a-lot-at-stake dept.

Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University in Oregon, led a trio of scholars last year who submitted to leading publications what they called "intentionally broken" papers on gender, race and sexuality. Several of those absurd pieces were published. Portland State University has now started disciplinary proceedings against Boghossian. From a report: The Oregon university's institutional review board concluded that Boghossian's participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State's ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate. Last month Portland State's vice president for research and graduate studies, Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved. In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."

8 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. Thou Shalt not Expose... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...The absurdities of Academia.

    Clearly proof that our Universities are broken.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Shoot the messenger by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, of course; shoot the messenger. Time honored "head in sand" technique.

    That'll solve the credibility problem!

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  3. Ethical Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    -- "In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern.""

    The ethical concern being that Boghossian displayed some ethics?

    1. Re:Ethical Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't seriously argue that his behavior was ethical, he knowingly published false papers and deliberately misled people. That he did so to reveal a major problem in the industry is beneficial to us, but does not excuse his behavior.

      He did so with the explicit intent to show the problems in a trusted system. Seriously, we are on a technology website. This process is security research. Every patch, every security advisory, every exposed exploit, the whole industry is based on the premise that proving the emperor has no clothes is a good thing.

      Without the proof, nobody listens and the issues in trusted systems continue.

      Intent matters. Testing trust isn't unethical. If you haven't got it by now, time to retire bucko.

    2. Re:Ethical Concern by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His behavior was perfectly ehtical. Publishing false papers with the intent of permanent deception is unethical (and probably the case with most published papers in several fields). That wasn't the case here: they revealed the deception quickly.

      Also, let's be clear here: their attempts would have failed if there wasn't a problem to expose. Any harm you imagine they did is being done routinely by people with entirely unethical motives in those fields and journals.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Re:Proves nothing by zugmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you look into it a bit more, you'll see they were in the process of doing many more of these "fake" papers and got caught out. They were forced to go public before they were done.

    If you manage to get a modified excerpt of Mein Kampf published in a professional journal, you should be given kudos for exposing a serious problem.
    I'm curious, what other whistleblowers do you think are deserving of "disciplinary action" for exposing how screwed up something is?

  5. Re:Proves nothing by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His papers were much more than that. Some of them came to conclusions that were not only not supported, but actually the opposite of what the included data showed. These should have been rejected flat out by any halfway competent reviewer. They were clearly accepted not for their scientific insight or contribution, but for the narrative they supported.

    That should be the real scandal. These papers should be under fire, and those reviewers should be investigated.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. Re:No, hang the heretic by anegg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heretics aren't dangerous because they're wrong. They're dangerous because they might be right. And here's a heretic with proof he's right. Hanging AND burning is not good enough for such a horrible person.

    I think the parent post containing this quote hits the nail on the head. The individual in question has shown rampant foolishness exists in the educational system, and the system is reacting to defend itself. The same thing happens to some individuals who expose glaring IT security holes (and correctly notify the owners rather than sell off knowledge of the vulnerabilities) - instead of being thanked and the holes patched up, the individuals are excoriated as bad actors and the holes are retained.

    If the educational institution in question was honestly bent on continual improvement, they would be focused on how to better the environment so that blatant horseshit wouldn't be put on a pedestal (published) rather than being filtered out. Sure, the individual intentionally created the material to be horseshit, but isn't even worse when material that is also certainly horseshit even though it wasn't meant to be such is published? The peer review process is supposed to filter out horseshit, and testing the system to see whether it works seems like a good idea to me. Shooting the person who found a fault in the system isn't going to encourage the elimination of faults in the future.