I guess I have to give the usual disclaimers here: yes, John Sailer is a conservative, and yes, it’s an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, whose op-eds are reliably on the Right. But of course where else will you learn things that the MSM won’t tell you? In this case, we learn that the National Institutes of Health, the largest government dispenser of research funds in America, is apparently funding hiring initiatives involving racial preferences. But how can they do that given that such hiring is illegal under Title VII? (And accepting students on the basis of race was recently deep-sixed by the Supreme Court.)
The way around this, according to Sailer’s article, is simply to fund “cluster hires,” which gives an institution a pot of money to hire several faculty at once, in hopes that doing so will bring in underrepresented minorities. Well, that’s fine (it casts a wider net), so long as people aren’t hired on the basis of their ethnicity itself. But in the case of the National Institutes of Health, cluster-hire funding also requires that candidates proffer diversity statements, which of course allow universities to pick and choose using race, which is easily determined from diversity statements. (The University of Chicago prohibits this explicitly based on the Shils Report: our hires and promotions are to be based solely on research, teaching, contribution to the intellectual community, and university or department service).
Further, beyond the NIH’s end-run around race-based hiring, universities are making their own goals much more explicit, as Sailer found out by using the Freedom of Information Act to see what universities are doing vis-à-vis hiring.
If Sailer is wrong in his quotes and claims, he could be sued, and because he bases them on public records, I seriously doubt that his article is misguided.
Click the headline to read, or find the WSJ piece archived here.
Here are some excerpts, showing how universities manage to hire based on ethnicity. One of them, to my horror, was Vanderbilt, which, headed by Chicago’s former Provost, has been a model of rationality, honesty, free speech, and adherence to academic and legal standards.
Sailer:
. . . . there is evidence that many universities have engaged in outright racial preferences under the aegis of DEI. Hundreds of documents that I acquired through public-records requests provide a rare paper trail of universities closely scrutinizing the race of faculty job applicants. The practice not only appears widespread; it is encouraged and funded by the federal government.
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a large hiring initiative targets specific racial groups—promising to hire 18 to 20 scientists “who are Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander.” Discussing a related University of New Mexico program, one professor quipped in an email, “I don’t want to hire white men for sure.”
Both initiatives are supported by the National Institutes of Health through its Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation program, or First. The program gives grants for DEI-focused “cluster hiring” at universities and medical schools, promising eventually to spend about a quarter-billion dollars.
A key requirement is that recipient institutions heavily value diversity statements while selecting faculty. The creators of the program reasoned that by heavily weighing commitment to DEI, they could prompt schools to hire more minorities but without direct racial preferences. That’s the rationale behind DEI-focused “cluster hiring,” an increasingly common practice in academia. The documents—which include emails, grant proposals, progress reports and hiring records—suggest that many NIH First grant recipients restrict hiring on the basis of race or “underrepresented” status, violating NIH’s stated policies and possibly civil-rights law.
In grant proposals, several recipients openly state their intention to restrict whom they hire by demographic category. Vanderbilt’s NIH First grant proposal states that it will “focus on the cluster hiring of faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, specifically Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander scientists.” The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the University of Texas at Dallas jointly proposed hiring 10 scholars “from underrepresented groups,” noting that the NIH First program specifically identifies racial minorities and women as underrepresented.
But if you can’t use race as a criterion for hiring, why are DEI statements required? This still confuses me, for it’s not even a moderately disguised way to engage in the practice. If you go to the NIH First Awards page, you see a list of seven schools given FIRST awards for cluster hiring, and then this statement:
These awardee institutions will build self-reinforcing communities of scientists, through recruitment of cohorts of early-career faculty who are competitive for assistant professor positions and have a demonstrated commitment to inclusive excellence. The institutions are also building efforts to positively impact faculty development, retention, progression, and eventual promotion, as well as develop inclusive environments that are sustainable. Overall, the FIRST cohort awardees, together with the CEC will work to determine if a systematic approach that integrates multiple evidence-based strategies including the hiring of faculty cohorts with demonstrated commitments to inclusion and diversity will accelerate inclusive excellence, as measured by clearly defined metrics of institutional culture change, diversity, and inclusion.
Unless you fell off the turnip truck, you’ll know that “inclusive” and “diversity” are simply code words for “racial diversity.” But the code isn’t hard to break. This means that the government is, without explicitly admitting it, in the business of producing equity, which of course is against government regulations. In fact, the NIH affirms this ban (bolding is mine):
At its inception, NIH First was widely understood not to involve racial preferences. In 2020, shortly after the program was announced, Science magazine published an explanation: “Not all of the 120 new hires would need to belong to groups now underrepresented in academic medicine, which include women, black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, and those with disabilities, says Hannah Valantine, NIH’s chief diversity officer. In fact, she told the Council of Councils at its 24 January meeting, any such restriction would be illegal and also run counter to the program’s goal of attracting world-class talent.”
ILLEGAL is the relevant word here. Sailer goes on (again, bolding is mine):
Yet multiple programs have stated their intention to limit hires to those with “underrepresented” status. One job advertisement, for a First role at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, notes: “Successful candidates will be early stage investigators who are Black, Latinx, or from a disadvantaged background (as defined by NIH).”
And some universities make explicit the fact that they’re hiring based on race. Drexel, one of the seven schools that got a FIRST Award, makes it mandatory to be an underrespresented minority to be hired:
Some grantees even admit such preferences in documents sent to and reviewed by the NIH. A joint proposal from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the university’s Baltimore County campus states that all scientists hired through the program will meet the NIH’s definition of “underrepresented populations in science.” Drexel University’s program, which focuses on nursing and public health, provides its evaluation rubric in a progress report. Among its four criteria: “Candidate is a member of a group that is underrepresented in health research.”
This raises questions about compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment. The First program’s website highlights regulations requiring that federal agencies ensure grant recipients comply with nondiscrimination law. The most basic implication is that universities can’t refuse to hire someone, or prefer one candidate over another, because of race or sex. But emails show that this has been happening.
This also occurs at the University of New Mexico (UNM), which appears to have been slapped on the tuches. Bolding is mine:
At the University of New Mexico, the First leadership team heavily scrutinized the race and sex of applicants. “Just to be sure: what was the ethnicity of Speech and Hearing’s first-choice candidate?” a UNM team member asked in an email.
“She identified as URM in her application, right? I am confused, maybe I am misremembering,” a team member wrote of a different candidate. Another responded, “It looks like she said she was a ‘native New Mexican.’ We checked, and she said she’s white.”
. . . UNM appears to have violated NIH First policy, which states that programs “may not discriminate against any group in the hiring process.” The UNM spokeswoman said in a statement that “the email correspondence among members of the UNM FIRST Leadership Team do [sic] not represent the University of New Mexico’s values nor does it comport with the expectations we have of our faculty” and that “as a result of this unfortunate circumstance,” the university is instituting a required “faculty search training/workshop for all . . . faculty search committee members.”
Hiring of underrepresented minorities is, of course, a form of discrimination—against people considered “white” or “white adjacent” (e.g., Asians).
And this goes on even for non-NIH-funded hires. One place is, as I said, Vanderbilt University, run by our former Provost, Daniel Diermeier. Does he know about this?
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a large hiring initiative targets specific racial groups—promising to hire 18 to 20 scientists “who are Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander.” Discussing a related University of New Mexico program, one professor quipped in an email, “I don’t want to hire white men for sure.”
For sure!
I’m pretty sure that Vanderbilt does know about this, because they refused to comment when asked. They do have a FIRST grant proposal in for a cluster hire, and it’s explicitly aimed at hiring those of “minoritized” groups, not including, of course, Asians or Jews (bolding is mine):
In grant proposals, several recipients openly state their intention to restrict whom they hire by demographic category. Vanderbilt’s NIH First grant proposal states that it will “focus on the cluster hiring of faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, specifically Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander scientists.”
. . . Taken as a whole, these documents shed new light on the practice of cluster hiring. They explain why some in academia seem to treat the practice as a form of legal racial quotas. In addition to the responses already noted, representatives of the University of Maryland, UT Dallas and UT Southwestern said that their institutions comply with civil-rights laws and don’t discriminate on the basis of race. Drexel, Northwestern, Mount Sinai and Vanderbilt didn’t reply to inquiries.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m in favor of increasing all kinds of diversity—socioeconomic, ethnic, and viewpoint diversity. The more varied people you have, assuming that they meet quality standards, the more chance you can get an oddball idea that will move science forward. But in science, and particularly in the NIH—whose money goes entirely for health-related research—an increase in diversity is important only insofar as it is associated with an increase in the quality of research produced. You can get both only by widening the net, trying to attract more applicants. And in the end you must, according to law, hire people irregardless of their race, and, as the Shils Report specifies for Chicago, using only criteria associated with merit.
Hiring documentation: “cluster hire”
“And so the dialectic continues.”
-Delgado and Stefancic
Critical Race Theory – An Introduction, p.66, 3rd Ed., 2017
As I’ve been retired for 10 years I’ve never heard of “cluster hiring.”
It seems to be just a DEI thing. Quite legal in Canada. Example:
https://ucalgary.ca/news/ucalgary-launches-inclusive-excellence-cluster-hiring-initiative-open-doors-equity-deserving
What matters is whether the information is accurate.
I think I said that. . . . . Of course if it’s in the Wall Street Journal, people here are less likely to believe it than if were, say, in the New York Times. And, as I said, if Sailer is making up quotes and stuff, he could be sued for defamation. You don’t do that if you want to keep your reputation and your job.
When it comes to factual reporting I’d trust the WSJ more than the NYT. That’s because they’ve maintained the distinction between reporting and op-ed to a much greater degree than the NYT and much of the MSM.
Hear, hear. That is my assessment of the two organizations as well.
+1
Very true, Coel.
I’m always on the alert whether a reporter states how something “seems.” The same with a reporter using the words “can,” “could,” “might” and “may.” What can’t one say using these words? I don’t see how it is possible to state facts using these words. Let me know when you (‘actually”) know for sure.
A hideous plague of mediocrity is upon us.
You should not have to apologize for quoting center or right of center sources.
“Because they’re conservative…” is not an argument against the truth of what is being asserted.
This goes for College Fix and others as well.
Such stories are simply ignored by the mainstream media.
It is why I unsubscribed to the NYTimes after being a subscriber for 25 years – they lied too much and I was missing any critical arguments outside their bubble.
I now read the Financial Times like I used to as a Wall St. trader because you can’t lie to the investor class and keep a business profitable. Traders, like scientists, care about truth, bubble inhabitants of Foxnewsworld and the Times pay to be misinformed a lot of the time.
D.A.
NYC
+1
Yes. And. Thank you.
“… You guys—consuming news from outlets whose editorial line you disagree with is a SUPERPOWER – and makes you more informed than most journalists.”
Batya Ungar-Sargon
I follow Resistance Twitter accounts for this reason.
+1
If I state a position with which someone disagrees by responding:
“Those are [Whoever’s] talking points,” or
“You are a ‘useful idiot’.”
Neither statement constitutes an argument.
Re: Hitch’s responding to someone saying, “I am offended.” (As if that constituted an argument): “I’m waiting to hear your argument.”
I DON’T care about any of this DEI stuff. What matters to me, is whether or not people ARE QUALIFIED or not. Nothing else matters. DEI is really DIE, and it is illegal.
+1
If DEI was fraud, that would be different. An institution should care about fraud.
Fact is, DEI is fraud. In one word : Entryism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism
Or as I like to put it :
Dialectical Epistemic Inversion
+1
At my university, where we’re also about to hire fistfuls of black and indigenous faculty members on the basis of their ethnicity, DIE defenders claim that all these folx had about the same qualifications as the white guys who could have been hired, therefore there are no costs (reduced excellence) and only benefits (diversity, representation, compensation for past abuses or disadvantages). This claim is defensible when a “racialized” person is hired from an open competition, or at least there can be evidence that the finalists for a faculty job all met the same low bar. It’s not defensible in a cluster hire where *only* such “racialized” folx are even considered. In those instances the bar has been taken down and thrown away, and no comparison is even possible. These are the potentially really egregious hires, and the people hired from those processes are most likely to be marked forever with the scarlet letter “D”, no matter their actual ability, qualifications, and excellence. Think Kamala Harris, who is I guess a smart, motivated, creative person (how else does one get to be a district attorney then attorney general then US senator), but is widely viewed as just a DEI hire for the vice presidency.
In the academic field I know well, black Americans are being hired with track records typically a third or a quarter as good as it would take for a white or Asian to get hired.
Since markers of esteem such as papers, citations, grant success, etc, are all openly accessible, this is an easy comparison to make. Of course making that comparison is taboo.
Totally agree this is happening. The definition of what’s minimally qualifying for a faculty job is malleable. Lots of motivated reasoning going on in those hiring processes.
“… how else does one get to be a district attorney then attorney general then US senator”
The partial answer to your question is Willie Brown, the ex-mayor of SF and influential king maker in SF politics. Harris dated Brown in the 1990s. He was 30 years her senior.
Per Brown, “Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”
The left-wing bureaucrats in the federal and state governments, along with the Democrats as a party, will continue to push their race, gender, and other Woke initiatives—even if they are illegal. Why? Because as long as Trump is sitting out there, virtually nobody on the left who is griping about these things will toss from power those who are promulgating such things. When they know that they have your vote, then you have no power. Same dynamic works on the right regarding other issues.
We need better choices.
There are plenty of Democrats, including me, who don’t push Woke initiatives. And how are we going to get better choices if there is no motivation to get rid of wokeness?
Better choices? I wish there were a satisfactory answer for those outside the donor class.
Interestingly, the betting markets show Trump with a 55% chance, Biden now under 14%, and Harris close behind. How have the financial markets responded? Like our President, they barely blinked. Those with substantial money in the game are not unnerved by the prospect of a second Trump presidency. Do they wish it? Probably not. But nor does it frighten them. They know that the scare mongering, the “democracy is on the ballot” hysteria, is politics for the Little People, as it always is when a group of self-interested political clergy declare that they are the only means of salvation to prevent a hell on earth.
I am encouraged by Democrats like you and many of your readers who do not push Woke initiatives. But, as I said, the Democrats as a PARTY will continue to do so. So, what is one to do if there is no motivation to get rid of wokeness? One necessary task, over the long term, is work like you already do. A chief reason for the Democratic Party’s support of Wokeism is, I believe, the misperception that these initiatives are more popular than they truly are. (I am speaking of the run-of-the-mill politicians, not the party activists.) The professional class in America is submerged in Woke bullshit, in part, because of widespread preference falsification: many publicly claim to believe and support things that they privately oppose. Why? Fear, opportunism. Motivations vary. Platforms like yours, with posts like you frequently share, give people opportunity to see that they are not alone in their reservations. Will more of them start speaking up in the workplace and elsewhere? Perhaps, eventually. The pro-Palestine protests rattled some people. The “transitioning” of children has given others courage to speak up. Will it be enough? I really don’t know.
Feels like they’ve got us over a barrel, for sure. I’ve been fed up with our 2 party system for years (if that’s what you meant by “more choices”).
Is it possible that the Institutes were merely interpreting an executive order that directed all federal agencies to hire on the basis of DEI principles to extend to organizations receiving federal funds?
JUNE 25, 2021
Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/
Yes. I’ve read about “cluster hiring” as a technique for rapidly increasing representation of under representative groups. Doing so also creates a critical mass of underrepresented employees that then make the environment more attractive to other such persons. Regarding whether or not this practice is legal will, yet again, have to be litigated in the courts. It appears to be illegal on its face, but the practice will need to be challenged in court. By the time the courts clarify the situation, a great deal of damage will already be done. The DEI activists will go as far as they can go until they are forced to stop.
I thought it meant for hot new developments, perhaps with a technology like maybe RNAi or genomics (e.g. Human Genome Project) at its core.
I too want to see a system that includes underrepresented minorities. Perhaps that can result in some unique approaches to inquiry, and it seems to me that its a more likely way to have people who prioritize research in areas that otherwise don’t get as much attention.
But I especially like to see inclusion of the underrepresented because academia is a big, fat highway straight into the middle class. And once you make it there, the benefits are generational.
But Mark the existing processes that focus only on the excellence of the candidates *already include everyone*. There is ~zero actual discrimination or bigotry against black, indigenous, female, gay, trans or other job candidates in academic searches. The complaints focus on supposed systemic barriers that prevent “marginalized” groups from attaining the same evidence of excellence as other candidates. These complaints always smell and sound like excuses not reasons.
And even if these systemic barriers exist (I’m doubtful), university search committees aren’t the groups or the life stages to address them.
The number of black applicants for NIH grants has ~doubled and the number of awards to black applicants has more than tripled since 2010.
nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2023/03/16/analyses-of-demographic-specific-funding-rates-for-type-1-research-project-grant-and-r01-equivalent-applications/
Black applicants tend to get less NIH grant money because they tend to choose research in public health and community health where *everyone* (including the white males) gets less money than the molecular biologists and other benchworkers (including the black molecular biologists).
http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw7238
I just don’t think there are problems remaining to address at the level of university job searches or research grant applications. To the extent there are real cultural differences that e.g. lead more black researchers to choose public health research that doesn’t seem like a problem or something that needs to be solved.
[ • ] means of production
[ • ] origin story of class and society
[ • ] problem of reproduction
[ • ] dialectically synthetic system under control of a council
#GnosticTemptation
#Hegel
#Marx
Science, Politics, and Gnosticism
Eric Voegelin
1968, 1997
Regenery Press, Chicago
Washington D.C.
Could you make posts like this clearer? I don’t understand them at all.
Each bullet point corresponds to thought developed by either Hegel or Marx and can be connected to society-creating ideas such as “benefits are generational”.
Such thought constitutes the temptations that gnostics from Hegel onwards used for dialectical manipulation. It is likely why DEI programs got into institutions.
Not really, though. The probability of being in jail falls as family income rises for both blacks and whites. That probability for a son of a black family at the top 99th percentile of the black income distribution is the same as for a son of a white family at the 30th percentile of the white income distribution. While the richest black 1% is much less rich than the richest white 1%, it is still a solidly middle-class income. The 30th percentile solidly isn’t.
This even though prosecutors and judges bend over backwards to avoid incarcerating black young people who’ve made a “mistake” through falling in with a bad crowd.
If college is a highway into the generational middle class, it seems to have some soft shoulders and dangerous curves for black people trying to stay on the bus. Either that or not enough care is being taken in giving out bus tickets to Easy Street. And how is that fair to white people denied a seat on the bus at all, and to their future customers and clients?
I still wonder what all those black DEI college grads are going to be doing that will supposedly guarantee them generational wealth. How many BAs in Sociology does the Dept. of Motor Vehicles need?
Leslie, of course it is unfair to those who are qualified but excluded. And whilst the “anti-racists” bleat about how it is a great thing for them to be able to re-balance historical wrongs, you may be sure that they also delight in the fact they are being unfair to another class of people. The truly curious thing is that they are often discriminating against their own groupings, and such self-hatred is always fascinating.
In the same vein as Jerry’s post:
Matt Burgess: It’s Time to Stop the Double Talk about Diversity Hiring. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 31, 2024
First, let’s admit that it’s happening
https://archive.ph/EPUce
Introductory paragraph:
Northwestern Law School Accused of Bias Against White Men in Hiring. New York Times, July 2, 2024
The lawsuit was filed a year after the Supreme Court struck down the use of racial and gender preferences in college admissions.
https://archive.ph/BsjHp
So, admittedly, minorities are under represented. But any efforts to give minorities a fair chance triggers the white right wingers. And thus white racism is established with no chance to redress the issue. Meanwhile at the other end of this fiasco, public schools in minority areas are under funded, making it harder to compete with better funded school districts and those who attend them. More racism. How do we fight the stupid? And to deal with this is CRT. Horrors! Outlaw CRT!
Actually public schools in poor districts are not underfunded. They are actually overfunded in that almost all states and provinces top up poor districts to reward their schools for their poor outcomes (and challenging students, OK) so they can spend more tax money per student, not less, than better-off districts can. Where in North America today would a school district be able to allocate less money for teacher salaries, the bulk of education costs, to schools in black neighbourhoods or indigenous reserves and get away with it? If you want to say those schools deserve an even larger degree of over-funding than they actually get, that is a different argument.
And trying to give minorities a fair chance does not trigger anyone. What is unfair is telling white applicants they will not be considered and should not have bothered to apply or that merit will be explicitly subordinated in order to find a black candidate for cosmetic diversity. In what world is that “fair”?
+1.
The US spends more per head on the schooling of black kids than white kids. Differences in outcomes are not about lack of funding. The “thrown money at the problem” approach has been tried for decades now, and hasn’t worked.
And minorities are indeed given a fair chance, as shown by Asian-American kids who take their chances and do fine.
What is meant by under-represented?
Should all fields reflect the same proportion of practitioners as the general population?
Yes, let’s outlaw CRT. It is racist and hurts the minority population.
In terms of funding, are you aware of studies showing that public schools in inner cities and minority areas in in fact funded better than other districts? Money doesn’t solve the issue of achievement variance. The NYC school spends over $35k per student. In a classroom of 24 students, that gives the district $840k per year to teach that class. Let’s say we have 6 periods per student per day X 24 kids per class, so we need 6 teachers to teach those subjects. NYC provides $5 million PER YEAR to fund those 6 periods (144 students). Even assuming some pro-rated administration and building expenses, do you seriously think that is underfunded?
I agree – how do we fight the stupid?
It is not just the NIH. All the major federal science funding agencies—NIH, NSF, NASA, and DOE—now have racial/gender preferences for funding or require grant recipients to impose them themselves. The agencies have no choice; they are under executive orders (EO 13985 and EO 14091) issued by the White House to do so.
We explain the breadth and depth of the infiltration of DEI into federal science funding in our exposé, “Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic Freedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge,” currently in press (abstract here, preprint here—see links in the endnotes to the aforementioned EOs).
These discriminatory practices are illegal, as John Sailer says. So, as we explain in the paper, funding agencies obfuscate the requirements using the nebulous language of DEI. The funding agencies are careful to state that grant recipients must adhere to laws that would ban racial/gender discrimination in hiring researchers, but then require grant recipients to report the demographics of the researchers they hire under the grant, data they use as a metric in evaluating the success of the research program. Thus they effectively require grant recipients to illegally discriminate as a condition of grant renewal.
The NIH said the quiet part out loud when, in 2021, they published a notice urging black scientists and those from other underrepresented groups to fill out a box for race on their funding application to flag their application for further consideration “even if the quality score that peer-review panels award the proposal falls outside the cutoff for most grants.” Presumably, realizing that they had just publicly admitted to violating federal civil rights law, they rescinded the statement a month later.
Coel, do you have a link to a souce (or can you recommend where I should look for more info)?
Freddie DeBoer has written a lot on this on his Substack. Here is one article: Funding Gaps Cannot Explain Academic Gaps:
“I really need to underline this point: lower educational expenditures per student can’t be the source of race and income gaps because Blacker and poorer schools receive more per-pupil funding than whiter and richer schools. Sosina and Weathers 2019: “On average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively.” Check the tables in the study for more. And this does not encompass the small but growing amount of private dollars that are finding their way into public schools through various grant programs and foundation spending, which likely almost all goes to struggling poor and high-minority schools. This finding flies so directly in the face of the progressive conversation that I find people just can’t hear it, but it actually makes perfect sense. Of course those schools have more funding; we’ve been throwing money at our achievement gaps for 40 years.”
Here is another of his articles.
Thanks
“But of course where else will you learn things that the MSM won’t tell you?”
Please note that the Wall Street Journal is part of the MSM.