-->
In the last couple of weeks a new front in
the controversy over University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson
has opened up. After claiming that he had been denied government funding from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) on account of his
outspoken opposition to the mandatory use of individualized, transgender
pronouns, he and his supporters (such as John Robson in the National Post) have
clashed with opponents over whether or not he has been the victim of left-wing
political correctness. Peterson has so far offered no concrete evidence that
the denial of his application for funding had anything to do with his political
notoriety. But his denial on this occasion, having been repeatedly successful
in past competitions, is, he thinks, suspicious enough to warrant claiming that
the jury’s decision was based not entirely on the substance of his application
but instead at least partly on an illegitimate consideration of his politics.
As numerous commentators have argued in
response, however, Peterson’s claim is unconvincing. Competitions for grants
through SSHRC and the other federal funding agencies are exactly that:
competitions. No one, no matter what his or her previous success rate may have
been, is in any way guaranteed future funding, especially given that the
success rate for SSHRC applications is in the neighborhood of 30%. It is
therefore incorrect for Peterson and his supporters to claim with any degree of certainty that his funding was
pulled because of his views over transgender pronouns.
But those who have pushed back against
Peterson have gone too far in denying even the possibility that his political
notoriety could have influenced the jury’s decision. Political theorist Jacob
Levy, for example, on the April 10 edition of CBC Radio 1’s noon hour show in
Montreal pooh-poohed the idea that there could have been such an influence. And
professor of gender studies Sonja Boon claimed on Twitter, based on her own
experience on SSHRC jury panels, that the “process is thoughtful, critical,
rigorous” and that she doesn’t “know how you’d rig it.” One can only be
surprised at their naïveté.
Although I have never been a member of a
SSHRC jury I have been a part of academic adjudicating panels. As much as one
might wish that those involved were wholly objective in their decision-making,
the reality is far from such an ideal. The decisions made are, after all, based
on qualitative, and therefore inherently subjective, judgments of the quality
of an application. There is therefore plenty of room for extra-scholarly
considerations to come into play in making decisions as to who wins and who
loses. Given the competition, it would likely only take one jury member’s
strong dislike for an application, for which they could undoubtedly find
sufficient justification, to sink its chances of success. And though applicants
may be anonymous to those on juries (a question I have been unable to
determine), they certainly are not to those within SSHRC who could therefore
quite easily sabotage an application if they so desired.
As for Boon’s claim as to the difficulty to
“rig it,” that a professor of gender studies is in this case so certain as to
the supposed objectivity and “rigorous” nature of SSHRC decision making is odd
to say the least. Gender Studies is practically defined by arguments for
“situated,” i.e. subjective and proud of it, accounts of truth: that all claims
to truth are made from the standpoint of an intersection of one’s identities
and social history. Real objective truth, on such an account, is therefore impossible. And yet in
this case, Boon asserts the opposite. Her conclusion in this case is hardly a coincidence since it is not at all
a surprise that a professor of Gender Studies would not be a fan of Peterson.
What this controversy concerning Peterson’s
SSHRC rejection points to, then, is the blindness of many within academia to
their own biases. While gleefully pointing to those of whom they disagree with,
far too rarely do they reflect on their own position within an overwhelmingly
left-leaning academy and the consequences of this dominance on those who
disagree with their politics. As the organization Heterodox Academy points out
(http://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/),
over the last twenty years the percentage of liberals or those on the far left
has risen sharply within the professoriate. It is not only naïve but
hypocritical to think that such dominance would not have the effect of
excluding those within academia who dare to speak out with opposing views.
