The National Academies tell editors, authors, and reviewers not to be be bullies or harassers

March 8, 2024 • 12:15 pm

My colleague the troublemaker Anna Krylov sent me this announcement from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences (NAS). I quote her with permission: “I read the policy and it is super annoying — patronizing and overreaching.”

This is a new policy for those engaged in NAS activities. There is to be no bullying, harassment, or discrimination among editors, authors, and reviewers. Not threats or intimidation, either, or “coercion to dominate others,” whatever that means. And if you commit these behaviors at meetings, workshops, conferences, or social functions that involve the National Academies in any way, you can get reported (a helpful link is given).

Now the behaviors singled out are indeed uncivilized behaviors that people should obey, and some are already illegal. However, to spell them out under threat of punishment is something you do to a two-year-old, not a grown-up scientist. It is indeed patronizing and offensive. Also, “aggressive behavior” or “coercion to dominate others” are slippery terms, and could be taken to mean being “domineering”—a regular feature of any group of scientists.

At any rate, it looks as though the latest trend in science is to not only specify minutely how they must and must not behave, but also threaten them if they don’t behave that way.

I wonder why this is happening now? I would guess that one reason might be legal liability, but these behaviors are already verboten in most venues, and there are already ways to prevent them.  Your guess is as good as mine.

21 thoughts on “The National Academies tell editors, authors, and reviewers not to be be bullies or harassers”

  1. In today’s climate, I think we can rest assured that whenever you see a directive against bullying, the issuers of the directive are the real bullies and they’re trying to silence the bullied.

  2. The “bullying” thing goes all the way down to kindergarten – the schools make a BIG deal about it.

    “Bullying” as put forth here is fraud – Iron Law of Woke Projection.

    The strategy is motte and bailey, with a scary new evil spirit to be exorcised by activism or ideological remoulding : “bullying”.

    I wrote out more, but I’ll leave it there for now.

    1. here’s an idea of what I mean :

      E.g. A student works in a biology lab. Something offends the student – from the PI’s social media, or an important paper needs to be published. The student – really, a Woke Marxist activist – can not only submit a request to investigate “bullying”, but blackmail the PI to get their way – perhaps authorship, perhaps something about data collection, etc.

      Intersectionality sets up a whole range of possibilities for identity-driven dialectical political warfare.

      In theory, of course.

  4. The real issue (or at least *a* real issue) is whether they will treat demonization, insults, and calls to punish academics who oppose far left shibboleths — DEI, decolonization, Israeli “genocide,” infinity sexes, gender-affirming care, transwomen are [the same as and to be treated exactly as] women, — as the “bullying and harassment” that it clearly is.

    If anyone would like to set up a betting market on this, I’ll take a bet of $1000 on “are you kidding?”

  7. Could it be that the memo addresses Wokies who’ve already been found subjugating others with such bad behaviour?

  8. This is not merely an extension of the culture of anonymous “bias reporting” that is now ubiquitous in academia. Note to whom the public is encouraged to “report any incident”. In short, this is an expansion of Human Resources territory. The guardians of this empire enjoy training in numerous workshops sponsored by the National Human Resources Association, much like this one: “Whether you’re an HR professional, a manager, or someone passionate about fostering inclusivity, this training will offer valuable insights and actionable takeaways. Join us as we explore the evolving landscape of providing safe spaces in workplaces.”
    Details can be found at: https://humanresources.org/ .

  9. This is very unbecoming of the Academy. My parents taught me about this when I was just a toddler. If there really is a good reason for such a statement, I’m horrified. Has parenting really gone downhill so far that our most prestigious organization of our most accomplished scientists has to remind members to treat others with respect? If not, and this is simply virtue signaling, then it tells us yet again how far the DEI tentacles have penetrated. Either way, not a good look.

  10. Employ witchfinders, they’ll find witches.
    It is the Money, it is always the Money. Billions to DEI in the past decade.

    I read lately the average IQ of college grads – which used to hover around 115, is now 100. Being a doctor, lawyer or chemist is still very hard, but that 100-115 cohort (and under b/c of affirmative action) needs some kind of job so the DEI industry….. that’s where it is at!

    You’ll believe this if you sit in on more than one or two actual DEI “training” sessions. Not the sharpest tools hectoring people about their “microaggressions.”
    Go ahead, find one and listen in. It’ll all become clear.
    D.A.

  11. I think that whenever seemingly common sense rules against something few people are actually doing are suddenly blazoned forth and handed out like emergency packs in a crisis situation, it’s a sign that the common sense rules are about to be extended into new territory.

    “Don’t stick ice cream in your ears!!!”*

    (*It should be taken as a given here that all head orifices, including eyes, mouth, and deep cuts such as bullet holes, should be considered forms of “ears.”)

    1. So.. I should NOT stick ice cream in my mouth? Is it for topical cooling only?

      😉

  12. Unfortunately, this is the trend now. Every conference now has such Code of Conduct and invitations to report anonymously on the violators. These codes are often more visible than a scientific program. I recently registered to a Gordon Conference, and you won’t believe what I was asked to agree to and what sorts of boxes I was required to check. In part, this is happening in response to the pressures by funding agencies (e.g., DOE will not give you a penny unless your conference has code of conduct and means of reporting misconduct), and in part — due to grass-root woke activism. I saw it happening at the Telluride Science Research Conferences — a formerly venerable organization, now slowly succumbing to the woke virus. The governing board (of which I was a member of) has decided to adopt such a code, because, they say, “we have a responsibility to bear a moral compass for the community.” I fought back and was outvoted.

    1. So it seems that this system has flaws, but it is pushed regardless. Hence it seems to me fair, to stress test the system in order to expose its flaws.
      I am sure that AI can be set towards the task of creating anonymous reports by the dozens. See, how the system reacts to such a challenge. Ideally starting with those who have pushed that system and then broadening to report everyone.
      First stage would be random reports, then plausible reports and finally reports of actual breaches of the rules that are entirely based on the subjective perception of the anonymous complainer.
      One should test, how the people pushing this react to such a challenge.

    1. Agreed about this becoming boilerplate at conferences and among organizations. I’m reminded of the post here a few years ago to which Brian Bowen replied with an anecdote about being followed around by “Evo Allies” at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution. The allies particularly suspected older white guys in aloha shirts as likely to offend against the code of conduct. Sort of academic pre-crime for the PKD fans.

  15. Good grief. No wonder people who want to be members of this group are scared to say anything. What a “catch-all” statement and threat.

  16. When I submit a manuscript, it is more likely than not that at least one of the reviewers will be a bully (and one, of course, is enough). Reviewing is a necessary but unpaid and ungrateful job. Apparently, for some scientists its only benefit is the opportunity for a power trip over the hapless authors from the safety of anonymity. But I suspect this is not what the document in question is trying to “fix”.

Comments are closed.