Jordan Peterson

Faculty promotions increasingly hinge on DEI activities, sidelining traditional metrics like publication impact, which is really the metric that scientists have decided on over a hundred years, best indexes their research productivity and ability. That's merit, merit.

That's the merit Garber's talking about when he said that American universities led the world, which they did in scientific research. Right, that's publication impact. Make no mistake about it. You prioritize anything over that, assuming the journals aren't corrupt, and they are corrupt now, so that's also a problem, then you're making everything worse.

That's the merit Garber's talking about when he said that American universities led the world, which they did in scientific research. Right, that's publication impact. Make no mistake about it. You prioritize anything over that, assuming the journals aren't corrupt, and they are corrupt now, so that's also a problem, then you're making everything worse.

That's the merit Garber's talking about when he said that American universities led the world, which they did in scientific research. Right, that's publication impact. Make no mistake about it. You prioritize anything over that, assuming the journals aren't corrupt, and they are corrupt now, so that's also a problem, then you're making everything worse.

And maybe not just worse, maybe like failure worse. Because you don't go from great to mediocre. You go from great to useless. There's no intermediary slide. And so if you're not great as a scientist, you're basically useless. A 2023 Nature study found 40% of sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty, so that's the hardcore scientists, felt DEI overshadowed research quality.

And maybe not just worse, maybe like failure worse. Because you don't go from great to mediocre. You go from great to useless. There's no intermediary slide. And so if you're not great as a scientist, you're basically useless. A 2023 Nature study found 40% of sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty, so that's the hardcore scientists, felt DEI overshadowed research quality.

And maybe not just worse, maybe like failure worse. Because you don't go from great to mediocre. You go from great to useless. There's no intermediary slide. And so if you're not great as a scientist, you're basically useless. A 2023 Nature study found 40% of sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty, so that's the hardcore scientists, felt DEI overshadowed research quality.

Right. So racial identity, sexual identity, sexual preference, et cetera, et cetera, gender, choice, all these idiot group categories now overshadows research quality. Just think about that. And then think about whether that's something you want to devote your tax money to. Now, publishing.

Right. So racial identity, sexual identity, sexual preference, et cetera, et cetera, gender, choice, all these idiot group categories now overshadows research quality. Just think about that. And then think about whether that's something you want to devote your tax money to. Now, publishing.

Right. So racial identity, sexual identity, sexual preference, et cetera, et cetera, gender, choice, all these idiot group categories now overshadows research quality. Just think about that. And then think about whether that's something you want to devote your tax money to. Now, publishing.

So when you do a scientific paper, and maybe that takes you five years, it depends on the complexity of the problem, and you're working on multiple issues at the same time, so you have a steady publication stream. If you're a great scientist, several a year. If you're a good scientist, at least one a year. You publish them. Journals are ranked by quality.

So when you do a scientific paper, and maybe that takes you five years, it depends on the complexity of the problem, and you're working on multiple issues at the same time, so you have a steady publication stream. If you're a great scientist, several a year. If you're a good scientist, at least one a year. You publish them. Journals are ranked by quality.

So when you do a scientific paper, and maybe that takes you five years, it depends on the complexity of the problem, and you're working on multiple issues at the same time, so you have a steady publication stream. If you're a great scientist, several a year. If you're a good scientist, at least one a year. You publish them. Journals are ranked by quality.

And then scientists evaluate their own papers to see when other scientists bother to pay attention to the publication and cite the paper. So one of the ways you determine whether a paper is impactful is by how many people refer to it, right? Logically. Okay, so that's the publication impact. So journals, including those tied to Harvard, prioritized DEI-themed papers.

And then scientists evaluate their own papers to see when other scientists bother to pay attention to the publication and cite the paper. So one of the ways you determine whether a paper is impactful is by how many people refer to it, right? Logically. Okay, so that's the publication impact. So journals, including those tied to Harvard, prioritized DEI-themed papers.

And then scientists evaluate their own papers to see when other scientists bother to pay attention to the publication and cite the paper. So one of the ways you determine whether a paper is impactful is by how many people refer to it, right? Logically. Okay, so that's the publication impact. So journals, including those tied to Harvard, prioritized DEI-themed papers.

Okay, so now think about that. You won't get hired unless you're part of the right group, and the groups multiply endlessly. You won't get promoted if you're not part of the right group. You can't submit a grant unless you're willing to abide by the dictates and publicly state it that would prejudice the selection against you, even if you're not in one of those favored groups.

Okay, so now think about that. You won't get hired unless you're part of the right group, and the groups multiply endlessly. You won't get promoted if you're not part of the right group. You can't submit a grant unless you're willing to abide by the dictates and publicly state it that would prejudice the selection against you, even if you're not in one of those favored groups.

Okay, so now think about that. You won't get hired unless you're part of the right group, and the groups multiply endlessly. You won't get promoted if you're not part of the right group. You can't submit a grant unless you're willing to abide by the dictates and publicly state it that would prejudice the selection against you, even if you're not in one of those favored groups.

And then now you can't publish, you can't do research on any topic that isn't racially, sexually, or otherwise group indicated. And if you did do that research, you couldn't get published. So now you tell me, oh journalist from the New York Times, how that's not 100% rotten from the bottom right to the top, and how you could possibly fix that. Journals are skewed. Promotion is skewed.