They shouldnt be asking for it at all
Comment on Prestigious academic publisher adds DEI requirements for peer-reviewed submission.
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 9 months ago
Yet again, Not the Bee just straight up invents bullshit and you post it here. Unbelievable.
It says in the email “You’re invited to self-report and can choose not to consent to share this information if you prefer”. The requirement to self-report is as binding as Not the Bee’s requirement to not be a flaming pile of crap. But, unlike Not the Bee, Adam clearly chose “I do not consent to the processing of my demographic information”, while the Bee continues to burn the endless garbage it writes about.
Kaboom@reddthat.com 9 months ago
ConMod@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I’ve been thinking about this.
I’m not sure that it not being binding is super telling. He explained that he was getting rejected without getting reviewed, and the people he linked were all DEI affiliated. It seems like a logical conclusion to me.
Can you link something that backs you up? NTB posts some stuff that doesn’t often get covered by other news outlets. They might not be up to your standards, but they seem to be pretty good.
In any case, it’s a right-wing site, posting with a right-wing bias. That’s what this sub is all about.
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 months ago
Yeah, that’s how the issue is framed. This is why I don’t like the NTB. It’s all framing and subtlety. They never make a real argument: in this case, that because he’s white, he’s being rejected; but if he hasn’t turned in his demographic information yet, then how do they know he’s white? NTB is silent. It’s not a logical conclusion because the reasons he can get rejected are many, including because it’s a prestigious academic publisher and they have stuff to do.
Nor does NTB ever make the argument that because the “entire global operation to end merit-based research” (lol) is being run by these people, merit-based research must be failing. It just lists some people with their pronouns shown and is like, “See!! You know what’s up!” No, no I don’t.
There’s no argument that any of this is true, it’s all just associations. Thus, there’s no evidence against it because no evidence was presented to make any argument whatsoever.