At American colleges, if you are a faculty member and you want more pay or a promotion, you must publish articles in journals like these since the journals supposedly have high standards… some researchers were thrilled to get an email from a journal that said: I have now closely considered the revisions of your manuscript dog park.” Dog park!! They’re laughing because they’d just pulled off a hoax. “...and will recommend its publication in Gender, Place, and Culture. they'd sent so-called research to 20 prominent journals in women and gender studies, race studies, sexuality fat and queer studies. For this journal of social work… We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. And this journal has accepted it. Seven of their crazy papers got in. And one that claims that dog humping incidents can be taken as evidence of rape culture – has been officially honored as “excellent scholarship”. I'm thinking oh my god, we got a paper in and it's probably the craziest thing we wrote James Lindsay is a mathematician. Peter Boghossian teaches philosophy.. Helen Pluckrose runs an academic magazine in London. They didn’t really expect that the journal of gender, place and culture would accept their paper, in which they claimed to have “closely” examined genitals of nearly 10,000 dogs to learn about rape culture and queer performativity. Did they just not read these things and accept them? Oh no. They read them very very carefully. They read them in detail. How could they believe you examined 10,000 dog genitals? We have no idea, in fact in the ... the first draft of that paper we were like, there is no way they're gonna believe that we did this. We think studying topics like gender race and sexuality is worthwhile and getting it right is extremely important. They made this video to explain why they tested the journals. A culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed like those that make whiteness and masculinity problematic. Basically it’s not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex.

Kind of a last straw happened. There was this paper, well-funded by the National Science Foundation that studied feminist glaciology. it said that glacier science is sexist Because the majority of glaciological knowledge that we have today stems from knowledge created by men about men within existing masculinist stories. The paper’s remedy? Feminist paintings of glaciers and feminist art projects that, I'm not kidding, hooked up a phone line to a glacier so you could call the glacier on the phone and listen to it. So that was the last straw for me These aren't your fields. No. No. No. Which should have made it more difficult. Much more difficult to fool the journals, but Papers started getting in. You ** got to be ** that this happened! This shouldn't have been possible. What appears beyond dispute is that making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get them validated at the highest levels of academic grievance studies. We flattered what they wanted to hear and then they told us that it was an important contribution to feminist geography. Maybe these are just mills that accept every paper. No. One journal we hoaxed was Hypatia, which is one of the two leading feminist journals. It has about an 18 percent acceptance rate. The researchers didn’t get to finish their experiment because the dog rape paper was so over-the-top, a Wall Street Journal reporter noticed. She exposed the hoax and ended the experiment before all the journals had weighed in. The 7 that accepted the fake papers did retract them. But what upsets me most is what happened next. No university said “hmm ... ... we’re not gonna use these journals.” No editor publicly said, “we have to raise our standards.” Think about if you did this to civil engineers with bridge-building. They would've thanked us. Right? Because they're driving over the bridges with their families. So they don't want the bridges to collapse. But the grievance study journal editors, instead of admitting that they’d published nonsense, criticized the hoaxers.

You've clearly engaged in flawed and unethical research. That was our whole point. A dozen of Peter’s fellow professors wrote an anonymous letter attacking him and the school newspaper ran it with this cartoon depicting peter as a clown. You're part of a clown car of hoax writers engaging in fraudulent, time-wasting, anti-intellectual activities. Right. They just described their own discipline. Do you dread walking to class? Yes. I've been spat on. I've been physically threatened. Portland State University, instead of applauding Peter for exposing nonsense, may fire him. I called Portland State, asking for an interview, but they declined. How can a college criticize the hoaxers, but revere ridiculous journals that publish nonsense? When you live in these tight ecosystems, this stuff makes total sense. There's a pervading rape culture, men are bad. The whole ball of wax. 20 years ago, a physicist submitted a nonsense paper to the journal “Social Text”, saying gravity just a “social construct”. That embarrassed the journal, But Social Text is still going strong, and at universities, nothing really changed. The best I can tap into is that this is kind of like a religious architecture in their mind where privilege is sin. So you can come up with these really nasty arguments like to put white kids and chains in the floor. It's an educational opportunity. And if you frame it in terms of overcoming privilege then it ... right in. And anyone who dares criticize that must be a conservative hack, holding the same ideological position as the Trump administration’s attack on trans rights. Maybe you are just conservative hacks looking to defend white, your white privilege. I don’t think so. I’ve never voted for a republican in my life. Nor have I Actually none of the hoaxers is conservative. My collaborators and I are left-wing academics who can now say with confidence these people don't speak for us.

The scholarship in these disciplines is utterly corrupted. They have placed an agenda before the truth. After this interview, the editor of one of the hoaxed journals did agree to talk to me. Maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're doing because it's gibberish, and they've proved it. Yeah, yeah they didn’t prove, that's the problem. That video will be available soon.