No Free Thought on Woke, By Brian Simpson
The article, https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/04/journal-retracts-paper-thats-unflattering-to-the-woke/
authored by Noah Carl, reports on the retraction of a scientific paper from the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. The paper, co-authored by Edward Dutton and Emil Kirkegaard, reportedly documented an association between Left-wing or "woke" views and poor mental health. Its retraction has sparked controversy, with the journal citing "trumped-up grounds" for the decision, including the authors' use of "judgemental language" that allegedly offended some readers—specifically, those with mental health issues.
The retracted paper gained attention for being one of the journal's most popular publications, suggesting it resonated with readers or stirred significant debate. Its central finding linked adherence to progressive or "woke" ideologies—broadly characterised by social justice advocacy, identity politics, and cultural sensitivity—to indicators of mental unwellness, such as anxiety or instability.
The journal's decision to retract the paper hinged on two stated issues:
1.Judgemental Language: Critics, as noted by the journal, argued that the paper's tone or phrasing was insensitive, potentially hurting the feelings of individuals with mental health struggles. This suggests the authors may have used direct or provocative terms to describe their findings, bypassing the neutral or euphemistic language often expected in academic writing.
2.Trumped-Up Grounds: The article asserts that the retraction reasons were flimsy or exaggerated, implying editorial pressure or ideological bias rather than substantive scientific flaws (e.g., methodological errors or data falsification). The retraction occurred despite the paper's popularity, raising questions about whether its visibility amplified the backlash or if the journal feared reputational damage from hosting controversial content.
The Daily Sceptic frames this incident as part of a larger pattern of academic censorship, where research challenging progressive orthodoxies faces suppression. The site often rightly critiques what it sees as the encroachment of ideological conformity—termed "woke" culture—into science, media, and public policy. This retraction fits into that narrative, suggesting that the journal bowed to external or internal pressure rather than defending scholarly freedom.
The authors, Edward Dutton and Emil Kirkegaard, are polarising figures known for research intersecting psychology, sociology, and controversial topics like intelligence or political belief systems. Dutton, a British anthropologist, and Kirkegaard, a Danish data analyst, have previously drawn criticism for work perceived as politically charged or methodologically contentious, as the dominant Left in academia perceive such researchers.
The article notes that the paper remains accessible outside the journal, likely via platforms like ResearchGate, personal websites, or repositories linked by the authors. This persistence underscores a tension in modern academia: while journals can retract papers, the internet ensures findings can still circulate, fuelling debate beyond editorial control, which is as it should be.
Public sentiment, as reflected in platforms like X, appears split. Supporters of the retraction might argue it upholds ethical standards by avoiding harm to vulnerable groups, while critics—like The Daily Sceptic—see it as evidence of science bending to emotional or ideological demands over empirical rigour. The phrase "trumped-up grounds" suggests the latter view dominates the article's tone, accusing the journal of prioritising feelings over facts. I roll with this view.
This event highlights several ongoing debates:
Academic Freedom vs. Sensitivity: Should research be curtailed if it offends, even if methodologically sound? The retraction suggests a shift toward protecting reader sensibilities, which critics argue undermines open inquiry.
Peer Review Integrity: If the paper passed initial review but was later retracted for language rather than data flaws, it questions the consistency and objectivity of editorial processes.
Mental Health Discourse: Linking political beliefs to mental health is inherently provocative, especially in a polarised climate. The paper's findings, if robust, could challenge self-perceptions of certain ideological groups, making its retraction a flashpoint.
The moral of the story: if one wants to pursue truth, then avoid the academic journals, which are little more than a reflection of all the problems of the modern universities.
Comments