GENIUS FORUMS

Jamesh wrote:Other than that I like to see a full on drunken verbal brawl between you three about where you each differ from the views of each other.

Cory Duchesne wrote: And then there is the controversial Phillip Rushton

Behind the scenes, however, I became the target of a witch hunt by some of the administrators. Dismayingly, my dean, a physical anthropologist, publicly declared that I had lost my scientific credibility and spearheaded an attack on me in the newspapers. She issued a series of preemptive statements making plain her negative opinion of me and my work. "What evidence is there for this ranked ordering of the evolution of the human races?" she wrote. "None." Claiming that her views represented only her academic opinion she emphasized that she was not speaking in any administrative capacity. Her letter was nonetheless widely interpreted in the media as a refutation by my "boss." Henceforth, in order to support me, a person would now have to go up against the dean in addition to prevailing opinion. Next, the chair of my department gave me an annual performance rating of "unsatisfactory" citing my "insensitivity." This was a remarkable turnaround because it occurred for the same year in which I had been made a Fellow of the prestigious John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. My previous twelve years of annual ratings had been "good" or "excellent." Indeed, my earlier non-controversial work had made me on of the most cited scholars in my university.

Because unsatisfactory ratings can lead to dismissal, even for a tenured professor like me, I contested the rating through various levels of grievance, wasting an enormous amount of time and emotional energy. The proceedings that followed were Kafkaesque, terrifying when they weren't simply funny. For example, the grievance procedures required that I first appeal the Chairman's negative assessment to the Dean. The Dean had already spoken out against me, so I asked the Dean to recuse herself from hearing the case. She refused. So I had to appear before her.

At my hearing, the Dean's folded arms and glowers of fury made her decision obvious, and six weeks later, she upheld the Department Chair's decision. In a seven-page letter justifying her decision, she cast aspersions at my "sensitivity," and my sense of "responsibility," and questioned whether ther were, in fact, "any" papers that had ever been published that had supported my perspective other than those I had written myself.

I decided on a more drastic defense. I wrote to colleagues around the world and received over 50 strong letters of support, many endorsing the evidence I had presented. When the Dean found out about this she went absolutely ballistic, on one occasion screaming and spitting at me in fury.

I eventually won my appeal against the Dean and the Chair and two separate grievance committeess chastised them for their actions against me. My annual performance ratings are back to receiving grades of "good" and "excellent."

Some radical and Black students mobilized and held rallies, even bringing in a member of the African National Congress to denounce me. In one demonstration, a mob of 40 people stormed through the psychology department, banging on walls and doors, bellowing slogans through bull horns, drawing swastikas on the walls, and writing on my door "Racist Pig Live Here."

Dennett declined on the basis that he wasn't doing any "media" for a few months. Chalmers would be a possibility I suppose.

Shahrazad wrote:Dennett would have been even a worse choice for you, as he doesn't even believe that human beings are conscious.

Shahrazad wrote:to Dennett we are no more conscious than a computer.

How about Pye? She is knowledgeable & eloquent & if she talks as well as she writes, she would make an interesting guest.

Ray Kurzweil

Dan Rowden wrote:Shardrol,

How about Pye? She is knowledgeable & eloquent & if she talks as well as she writes, she would make an interesting guest.

I agree Pye is interesting and knowledgeable, however I don't agree that if she speaks like she writes that she would be interesting. I often find her writing style painful. What would you suggest the show theme ought be if we did?

Shardrol wrote:I'm not very well-educated, especially in philosophy.

Shardrol wrote:I would say that gender is irrelevant to Buddhist practice, & that identifying too strongly with one's gender would just be an impediment