//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
History & political economy of culture; Associate Professor of History, UMass-Amherst. Opinions my own. Prefer email to DMs. https://asheeshksi.substack.com/ asheeshks.org/
Asheesh Kapur Siddique








Loading...
You can have viewpoint diversity. Or you can have peer review. But you cannot have both. And without peer review, you cannot have credible knowledge at all. shorturl.at/2Ji1X
this is the biggest problem with "viewpoint diversity" con artists: their ideas aren't in fact new. they're warmed over old stuff that's been conclusively disproven.
Your university is going to hire these guys to use AI to get rid of ‘inefficient’ departments like History and English. Cheaper than McKinsey but just as bad.
1h
2d
2h
One of the fascinating things about the discourse on Trump’s war on science is how anti-Trump conservatives are decrying the politicization of the NSF while remaining silent, if not cheerleading, the politicization of the NEH and universities via “viewpoint diversity.”