The leftist obsession with “equity” is showing up all over. Some people insist on ending blind auditions for orchestral openings on the grounds that it’s more important to get a “better” racial mix of musicians than to identify the best ones. And this same mindset is now showing up in the world of academic publishing. It has always been the case that submissions were evaluated “blind” — that is, without the reader knowing anything about the writer.
Now there’s pressure to change that. Daniel Buck writes about this disturbing (but hardly surprising) development in today’s Martin Center article.
In an article for Inside Higher Ed, one academic argues for open reviews. This author, Kim Manturuk, had brought together a conference to discuss instructional practices best suited to the pandemic era. To her shock and horror, a few papers authored by Christians made it through the double-blind review process. Whereas the ancient Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides recommended we “hear the truth, whoever speaks it,” Manturuk, a modern-day Pharisee, suggests we hear the truth only when it is spoken by the ideologically pure.
So, just as with student admissions, merit is no longer the key to success. Papers are to be evaluated based on the characteristics of the writers and tossed aside if those characteristics somehow indicate that the paper isn’t aligned with “proper values.”
Buck argues that this development takes our universities back to the days of the Inquisition.
His conclusion rings true:
At stake in this debate is far more than the quality of this or that academic journal. Instead, Manturuk’s argument can be seen as a continuation of the effort to reshape the very purpose of our universities. It should be stringently opposed.