Chapter

The Radicalization of the American Academy

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

This chapter reviews evidence regarding the radicalization of academia. It is organized into the following major sections: A review of the evidence on the psychology of left-wing extremism and left-wing authoritarianism; a review of selected real-world events emblematic of left-wing extremism and authoritarianism in the American academy; we then review national surveys of Americans and American professors, which show that both the mainstream left and far left are massively overrepresented in the American academy, and this skew seems to be in the process of becoming even more extreme. This is then followed by a review of surveys showing that scholars on the right report far greater experiences of a hostile work environment than do scholars on the left and substantial minorities and sometimes majorities of scholars on the left express willingness to purge and punish their opponents. Evidence provided by surveys of academics also shows that academia is increasingly populated by demographic groups less supportive of free speech and academic freedom. As individuals hostile to free speech and academic freedom ascend into leadership positions in major academic organizations and institutions, they can be expected to implement policies reflecting that hostility. A review of recent developments at major universities, the National Institutes of Health, the apex science journal Nature, and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology confirms this expectation. We end by reviewing some of the ways the radicalization of the American academy has produced ideological corrupt and demonstrably invalid scholarship. We end by making some recommendations for reversing these trends but we are not optimistic that any will actually be adopted to any significant degree.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Recently there have been many discussions about ideological bias in psychology impeding necessary scientific checks and balances (Campbell & Manning, 2018;Ceci & Williams, 2018;Crawford & Jussim, 2018;Duarte et al., 2015;Jussim, 2018Jussim, , 2022. Roberts et al. (2020) and Hommel (this issue) focus on the issue of race as a factor in the intellectual composition of psychology. ...
... Ratios of 10 liberals to 1 conservative are common in psychology, whereas the population ratio is closer to 1:1 (Buss & von Hippel, 2018;Duarte et al., 2015;Jussim, 2022). However, a well-trained psychologist would be the first to point out that even discrepancies this large do not automatically mean that bias or discrimination is at work. ...
... However, a well-trained psychologist would be the first to point out that even discrepancies this large do not automatically mean that bias or discrimination is at work. Gross (2013) explored the many alternative hypotheses for the ideological disparity in academia and concluded that self-selection was the dominant factor, and it was a much more important contributor than bias or discrimination (but see Inbar & Lammers, 2012;Jussim, 2021Jussim, , 2022. ...
Article
Full-text available
The public will rightly not value a science that is more concerned with demographic population matching than with ideas. Taking further steps in the direction of identity politics will reduce public confidence in psychology’s conclusions and reduce trust and respect. If psychology embraces demographic quotas, there will be self-selection out of the discipline, and that self-selection will harm our science.
Article
Full-text available
Two preregistered studies from two different platforms with U.S.-based representative samples (N = 1,865) tested the harm-hypervigilance hypothesis in risk assessments of controversial behavioral science. As expected, across six sets of scientific findings, people consistently overestimated others’ harmful reactions with medium-to-large average effects (and underestimated helpful ones), even when incentivized for accuracy. Additional analyses found (1) harm overestimations were associated with support for censoring science; (2) those more offended by scientific findings reported greater difficulty understanding them; (3) moderately consistent evidence for an association between more conservative ideology and harm overestimations. These findings are particularly relevant as journals have begun evaluating potential downstream harms of scientific findings. We discuss implications of our work and invite scholars to develop rigorous tests of (1) the social pressures that lead science astray and (2) the actual costs and benefits of publishing or not publishing potentially controversial conclusions.
Article
Full-text available
We examine the predicted replicability of experimental research on system justification theory (SJT) by conducting a z‐curve analysis. Z‐curve is a meta‐analytic technique similar to p‐curve, but which performs better under conditions of heterogeneity. It estimates the predicted replication rate, average power, false discovery risk, and file drawer ratio (FDR) of a sample of studies. The z‐curve based on 116 papers and 232 unique samples suggests that the experimental SJT literature is likely to show low rates of replicability, as indicated by an overall average statistical power of 16%. Moderator analyses suggest that this may be driven in part by publication pressures, that the replicability of research in this area has improved since 2015, and that studies using system threat manipulations show particularly low estimated replication rates (ERR). Implications for the replicability and validity of the experimental SJT literature are discussed, and recommendations to increase the rigor of research are put forth.
Article
Full-text available
In their target article, Gawronski et al. (this issue) propose to define implicit bias as the unconscious effect of social category cues on behavioral responses. Based on this definition, they reason that the study of biases on implicit measures may have little relevance to implicit biases arising in everyday life. We applaud Gawronski et al.’s commitment to a precise definition of the implicit bias construct and we agree with their clear-cut separation of the two constructs. However, we contest the (scientific, educational, societal) value of ideas disseminated around bias on implicit measures when relating these measures to “unconscious biases.” We also contest the relevance of retaining the delusive implicit terminology in social cognition research and research inspired by it. We propose an alternative terminology for the construct of interest - unconscious social categorization effect - and point to current limitations and potential ways forward for studying it. More generally, our commentary points to risks associated with conceptual and methodological flaws in implicit attitude and social cognition research.
Article
Full-text available
Authoritarianism has been the subject of scientific inquiry for nearly a century, yet the vast majority of authoritarianism research has focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In the present studies, we investigate the nature, structure, and nomological network of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a construct famously known as “the Loch Ness Monster” of political psychology. We iteratively construct a measure and data-driven conceptualization of LWA across six samples (N = 7,258) and conduct quantitative tests of LWA’s relations with more than 60 authoritarianism-related variables. We find that LWA, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the “heart” of authoritarianism. Relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dogmatism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA powerfully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence. We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarianism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism’s central features, conceptual breadth, and psychological appeal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Recent research suggests the validity of the construct of Left-wing Authoritarianism (LWA). Like its well-studied parallel construct Right-wing Authoritarianism, LWA is characterized by dogmatism, punitive attitudes toward dissenters, and desire for strong authority figures. In contrast to RWA, LWA mobilizes these traits on behalf of left-wing values (e.g. anti-racism, anti-sexism, and wealth redistribution). I inductively examined the extent to which RWA and LWA predicted, in April 2020, Americans' endorsement of 19 authoritarian policies and practices intended to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For 11 of these policies (e.g. abrogating the right to trial by jury for pandemic-related crimes), both RWA and LWA independently positively predicted endorsement. These findings are consistent with recent work showing psychological similarities between the two constructs.
Article
Full-text available
This article provides a comprehensive review of divergent conceptualizations of the "implicit" construct that have emerged in attitude research over the past two decades. In doing so, our goal is to raise awareness of the harmful consequences of conceptual ambiguities associated with this terminology. We identify three main conceptualizations of the "implicitness" construct: The procedural conceptualization (implicit as indirect), the functional conceptualization (implicit as automatic), and the mental theory conceptualization (implicit as associative), as well as two hybrid conceptualizations (implicit as indirect and automatic, implicit as driven by affective gut reactions). We discuss critical limitations associated with each conceptualization and explain that confusion also arises from their coexistence. We recommend discontinuing the usage of the "implicit" terminology in attitude research and research inspired by it. We offer terminological alternatives aimed at increasing both the precision of theorization and the practical value of future research.
Article
Full-text available
Extremist acts and the process of radicalizations got into researchers’ attention worldwide since 2001. The aim of this paper is to offer a broad image on radicalization and extremist acts and to bring a new perspective for the conceptualization of radicalization. Radicalization is a process of developing extremist beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. The extremist beliefs are profound convictions opposesd to the fundamental values of society, the laws of democracy and the universal human rights, advocating the supremacy of a certain group (racial, religious, political, economic, social etc.). The extremist emotions and behaviors may be expressed both in non-violent pressure and coercion and in actions that deviate from the norm and show contempt for life, freedom, and human rights. A complete inroad to psychological mechanism involved in the process of radicalization is offered in order to have a broad image regarding current research in the field. Starting from this point, a rational emotive and behavioral conceptualization on radicalization has been developed, bringing together all the concepts and knowledge in the field. A complete and clear conceptualization is crucial for developing prevention/intervention programs and good practices in dealing with this process which has been spreading in the past years. The final part deals with directions regarding prevention/intervention programs from a rational emotive and behavioral perspective, and also from the perspective of European policies.
Article
Full-text available
The effects of gender stereotype threat on mathematical test performance in the classroom have been extensively studied in several cultural contexts. Theory predicts that stereotype threat lowers girls’ performance on mathematics tests, while leaving boys’ math performance unaffected. We conducted a large-scale stereotype threat experiment in Dutch high schools (N = 2064) to study the generalizability of the effect. In this registered report, we set out to replicate the overall effect among female high school students and to study four core theoretical moderators, namely domain identification, gender identification, math anxiety, and test difficulty. Among the girls, we found neither an overall effect of stereotype threat on math performance, nor any moderated stereotype threat effects. Most variance in math performance was explained by gender, domain identification, and math identification. We discuss several theoretical and statistical explanations for these findings. Our results are limited to the studied population (i.e. Dutch high school students, age 13–14) and the studied domain (mathematics).
Article
Full-text available
Although past research suggests authoritarianism may be a uniquely right-wing phenomenon, the present two studies tested the hypothesis that authoritarianism exists in both right-wing and left-wing contexts in essentially equal degrees. Across two studies, university (n = 475) and Mechanical Turk (n = 298) participants completed either the RWA (right-wing authoritarianism) scale or a newly developed (and parallel) LWA (left-wing authoritarianism) scale. Participants further completed measurements of ideology and three domain-specific scales: prejudice, dogmatism, and attitude strength. Findings from both studies lend support to an authoritarianism symmetry hypothesis: Significant positive correlations emerged between LWA and measurements of liberalism, prejudice, dogmatism, and attitude strength. These results largely paralleled those correlating RWA with identical conservative-focused measurements, and an overall effect-size measurement showed LWA was similarly related to those constructs (compared to RWA) in both Study 1 and Study 2. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that LWA may be a viable construct in ordinary U.S. samples.
Article
Full-text available
Inbar and Lammers asked members of APA Division 8 (personality and social psychology) about their political orientation, hostility experienced related to their political orientation, and their willingness to discriminate against others based on perceived political orientation. In this replication and extension, 618 faculty members from various academic disciplines across four California State University campuses completed an online questionnaire that added parallel questions about the liberal experience to the original questions about the conservative experience. Participants were overwhelmingly liberal in self-report across all academic areas except agriculture. The conservative minority reported experiencing more hostility than the liberal majority, but both groups expressed similar “in-group/out-group” attitudes. Results supported the ideological-conflict hypothesis for discrimination and a “birds of a feather flock together” interpretation of the lack of political diversity among the professoriate.
Article
Because the term “diversity” has two related but different meanings, what authors mean when they use the term is inherently unclear. In its broad form, it refers to vast variety. In its narrow form, it refers to human demographic categories deemed deserving of special attention by social justice–oriented activists. In this article, I review Hommel’s critique of Roberts et al. (2020), which, I suggest, essentially constitutes two claims: that Roberts et al.’s (2020) call for diversity in psychological science focuses exclusively on the latter narrow form of diversity and ignores the scientific importance of diversity in the broader sense, and ignoring diversity in the broader sense is scientifically unjustified. Although Hommel’s critique is mostly justified, this is not because Roberts et al. (2020) are wrong to call for greater social justice–oriented demographic diversity in psychology but because Hommel’s call for the broader form of diversity subsumes that of Roberts et al. (2020) and has other aspects critical to creating a valid, generalizable, rigorous, and inclusive psychological science. In doing so, I also highlight omissions, limitations, and potential downsides to the narrow manner in which psychology and the broader academy are currently implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Chapter
This chapter is a critical, theoretical, and empirical review of political bias. Herein it roundly criticizes the manner in which the social sciences have allowed political biases to undercut the validity and credibility of their scholarship. It is a theoretical review because the chapter presents two complementary and synergistic models of academic bias (one about its manifestations, the other about its processes). It is empirical because the chapter then uses those models to review the now vast evidentiary case for political bias, and because this chapter presents new data providing further evidence of such biases. This chapter also highlights when proposed manifestations of political bias are plausible but not yet demonstrated – thereby also identifying potential directions for future empirical research.
Article
Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), portrayed current undergraduate American college students (most of whom are in the generation Gen Z: 1995 - 2013) as valuing emotional well-being and the advancement of social justice goals above traditional academic values such as academic freedom and the pursuit of truth. We investigated whether this value discrepancy exists among 574 American university students by exploring the prioritization of five different academic values (academic freedom, advancing knowledge, academic rigor, social justice, and emotional well-being). We also explored how gender, generation, personality, major, and conservatism predict each academic value. Generational differences were present, with Gen Z students emphasizing emotional well-being and de-emphasising academic rigor. Males scored higher on measures of academic freedom and advancing knowledge, while lower on social justice and emotional well-being compared to females. Political conservatism was the strongest predictor for social justice scores, with increased liberal attitudes predicting higher scores on social justice. Emotional stability positively predicted advancing knowledge, while negatively predicting emotional well-being. Agreeableness positively predicted emotional well-being, while negatively predicting advancing knowledge. We ultimately argue that gender is a crucial, underestimated explanatory factor of the value orientations of American college students.
Article
Geoscience remains one of the least diverse disciplines in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM), with persistent underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous and other people of colour (BIPOC) and other minoritized groups, in the United States and other countries. The exclusion and limited recruitment, retention and success of some racial and ethnic groups and other minoritized communities in the geosciences is often discussed using the metaphor of a leaky pipeline. However, as many have argued, this passive imagery betrays the fact that, in many ways, the experience for minoritized scholars is more like a vicious or hostile obstacle course with barriers that have been put in place to slow down or exclude certain groups. To address the lack of inclusion within the workforce, this exclusionary obstacle course should be placed in the context of scientific racism, colonial legacies and systemic biases that permeate our disciplines and institutions. We argue that in the geosciences and beyond, we must first acknowledge the cultural and structural barriers that this hostile obstacle course presents before we can dismantle them.
Article
This is a study of 12,372 professors in 116 colleges that are the four top US News-ranked colleges in each of 30 states that collect political registration data. We devised the sample to highlight variation in registration arising from individual, college-level, and state-level characteristics. We find an overall Democratic-to-Republican registration ratio of 8.5:1, but age, gender, field, region, and religious affiliation modify the ratios of Democrats to Republicans. This is the first application of logistical modeling to archival faculty registration data. The logistical models mostly confirm the univariate findings but reveal that state- and college-level dummy variables retain their significance when individual, field, and college rank are controlled. Organizational cultures of academic institutions and state political cultures along with better-understood influences of personal and institutional characteristics may influence the propensity of colleges to engage in or deviate from preponderately Democratic hiring.
Article
In this review, I provide a pessimistic assessment of the indirect measurement of attitudes by highlighting the persisting anomalies in the science of implicit attitudes, focusing on their validity, reliability, predictive power, and causal efficiency, and I draw some conclusions concerning the validity of the implicit bias construct. This article is categorized under: • Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making
Article
Members of the field of philosophy have, just as other people, political convictions or, as psychologists call them, ideologies. How are different ideologies distributed and perceived in the field? Using the familiar distinction between the political left and right, we surveyed an international sample of 794 subjects in philosophy. We found that survey participants clearly leaned left (75%), while right-leaning individuals (14%) and moderates (11%) were underrepresented. Moreover, and strikingly, across the political spectrum from very left-leaning individuals and moderates to very right-leaning individuals, participants reported experiencing ideological hostility in the field, occasionally even from those on their own side of the political spectrum. Finally, while about half of the subjects believed that discrimination against left- or right-leaning individuals in the field is not justified, a significant minority displayed an explicit willingness to discriminate against colleagues with the opposite ideology. Our findings are both surprising and important because a commitment to tolerance and equality is widespread in philosophy, and there is reason to think that ideological similarity, hostility, and discrimination undermine reliable belief formation in many areas of the discipline.
Article
In the contemporary context, it is inescapable that racism is a factor in US public opinion. When scholars take stock of the way we typically measure and conceptualize racism, we find reason to reconceptualize the racial resentment scale as a measure of perceptions of the reasons for political inequality. We also see reason to move beyond thinking of racism as an attitude, toward conceptualizing it as a perspective. In addition, we see reason to pay closer attention to the role of elites in creating and perpetuating a role for racism in the way people think about public affairs. The study of racism is evolving in parallel with the broader public discussion: toward a recognition of the complex and fundamental ways it is woven into US culture and political life. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 23 is May 11, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
Preprint
Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape
Book
Is climate change real? Does racism still determine who gets ahead? Is sexuality innate? Do immigration and free trade help or hurt the economy? Does gun control reduce violence? Are false convictions common? On these and many other basic questions of fact, Americans are deeply divided. How did this happen? What does it mean? And is there anything we can do about it? Drawing upon several years of original survey data and experiments, Marietta and Barker reach a number of enlightening and provocative conclusions. Among them is that dueling fact perceptions are not so much a result of hyper-partisanship or media propaganda as they are of simple value differences and deepening distrust of authorities. The educated—on both the Left and Right—carry the biggest guns and are the quickest to draw. These duels foster social contempt—even in the workplace—and they warp the electorate. And finally, the remedies that have been proposed don’t seem to holster many weapons; in fact, they add bullets to the chamber in some cases. Marietta and Barker’s pessimistic conclusions will challenge idealistic reformers.
Article
The microaggression concept has recently galvanized public discussion and spread to numerous college campuses and businesses. I argue that the microaggression research program (MRP) rests on five core premises, namely, that microaggressions (1) are operationalized with sufficient clarity and consensus to afford rigorous scientific investigation; (2) are interpreted negatively by most or all minority group members; (3) reflect implicitly prejudicial and implicitly aggressive motives; (4) can be validly assessed using only respondents’ subjective reports; and (5) exert an adverse impact on recipients’ mental health. A review of the literature reveals negligible support for all five suppositions. More broadly, the MRP has been marked by an absence of connectivity to key domains of psychological science, including psychometrics, social cognition, cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavior genetics, and personality, health, and industrial-organizational psychology. Although the MRP has been fruitful in drawing the field’s attention to subtle forms of prejudice, it is far too underdeveloped on the conceptual and methodological fronts to warrant real-world application. I conclude with 18 suggestions for advancing the scientific status of the MRP, recommend abandonment of the term “microaggression,” and call for a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed microaggression lists pending research to address the MRP’s scientific limitations.
Article
Stereotype threat is considered to be a robust effect that explains persistent gender gaps in math performance and scientific career trajectories. Some evidence suggests stereotype threat effects are buffered by adoption of performance avoidance goals (Chalabaev, Major, Sarrazin, & Cury, 2012). With 590 American female participants, we closely replicated Chalabaev et al. (2012). Results showed no significant main or interaction effects for stereotype threat or performance avoidance goals, despite multiple controls. We conclude that effects of stereotype threat might be smaller than typically reported and find limited evidence for moderation by avoidance achievement goals. Accordingly, stereotype threat might not be a major part of the explanation for the gender gap in math performance, consistent with recent meta-analyses (Flore & Wicherts, 2015).
Book
Professors and Their Politics tackles the assumption that universities are ivory towers of radicalism with the potential to corrupt conservative youth. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons gather the work of leading sociologists, historians, and other researchers interested in the relationship between politics and higher education to present evidence to the contrary. In eleven meaty chapters, contributors describe the political makeup of American academia today, consider the causes of its liberal tilt, discuss the college experience for politically conservative students, and delve into historical debates about professorial politics. Offering readable, rigorous analyses rather than polemics, Professors and Their Politics yields important new insights into the nature of higher education institutions while challenging dogmas of both the left and the right.
Book
This book shows that many ordinary people today are highly susceptible to hate literature and are psychologically disposed to embrace antidemocratic, facist policies. Many of our biggest problems, seemingly unrelated, are found to have common authoritarian roots. This book gives insight into how authoritarian minds are created and how they operate, and how their failings and vulnerabilities produce submission and aggression. A search for authoritarians on the left finds very few. Instead, studies reveal a strong concentration of authoritarians among religious fundamentalists and conservative politicians. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)(jacket)
Article
The effects of McCarthyism on U.S. colleges are considered, with a focus on the response of administrators and faculty members to the anti-Communist furor of the 1940s and 1950s. Perspectives on McCarthyism as a political process are offered, along with an explanation of how it gained so much power. McCarthyism is seen as having two stages: the objectionable groups and individuals were identified; then, they were punished, usually by being fired. It is argued that U.S. colleges would not have purged their left-wing faculty members during the McCarthy era without pressures from outside. Chapters cover: the development of academic freedom, 1886-1918; academic Communists in the 1930s and 1940s; political repression of academic radicals, 1932-1942; the exclusion of Communists from academic life after World War II; higher education's early response to congressional investigations and right-wing attacks; congressional committees, unfriendly witnesses, and the academic community; investigating committees and academic witnesses in the spring of 1953; academic committee and unfriendly witnesses; the quieter dismissals of left-wing teachers; the academic blacklist in operation; coping with the academic blacklist; and the failure of the academic profession to defend its members against the anti-Communist purges. (SW)
Article
A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. We surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative "overall," there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. © The Author(s) 2012.
More weight’: An academic's guide to surviving campus witch hunts
  • D S Abbot
Berkeley scientist resigns over refusal to invite ‘canceled’ geophysicist
  • E Crane
Crane, E. (2021, October 19). Berkeley scientist resigns over refusal to invite 'canceled' geophysicist. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/berkel eys-david-romps-resigns-after-guest-lecturer-refusal/.
Why California rejected racial preferences
  • C Friedersdorf
Friedersdorf, C. (2020, November 10). Why California rejected racial preferences, again. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/whycalifornia-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/.
Scholars under fire: 2021 year in review
  • K German
  • S T Stevens
German, K., & Stevens, S.T. (2022). Scholars under fire: 2021 year in review. Available online at: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/miscellaneouspublications/scholars-under-fire-2021-year-in-review/scholarsunder-fire-2021-yearin-review-full-text/.
Spate of antisemitic attacks in US during recent Mideast tensions
  • E Goldstein
Goldstein, E. (2021, June 22). Spate of antisemitic attacks in US during recent Mideast tensions. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/22/spate-antisemitic-attacksus-during-recent-mideast-tensions.
The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind
  • K Herzog
Herzog, K. (2021, June 4). The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.commonsense.news/p/the-psychopathicproblem-of-the-white#details.
Manifestations of political bias in the academy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation
  • N Honeycutt
Honeycutt, N. (2022). Manifestations of political bias in the academy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
IAT scores, racial gaps and scientific gaps
  • L Jussim
  • A Careem
  • Z Goldberg
  • N Honeycutt
  • S T Stevens
Jussim, L., Careem, A., Goldberg, Z., Honeycutt, N. & Stevens, S. T. (In press). IAT scores, racial gaps and scientific gaps. In J. A. Krosnick, T. H. Stark, & A. L. Scott (Eds.), The future of research on implicit bias. Cambridge University Press.
Scholars under fire database. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
  • Fire
FIRE. (2022). Scholars under fire database. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.thefire.org/res earch-learn/scholars-under-fire.
Scholars under fire: The targeting of scholars for ideological reasons from 2015 to present. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
  • K T German
  • S T Stevens
German, K. T. & Stevens, S.T. (2021). Scholars under fire: The targeting of scholars for ideological reasons from 2015 to present. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Available online at: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/ miscellaneous-publications/scholars-under-fire/.
U.S. faces outbreak of Anti-Semitic threats and violence. The New York Times
  • R Graham
  • L Stack
Graham, R., & Stack, L. (2021, May 26). U.S. faces outbreak of Anti-Semitic threats and violence. The New York Times. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https:// www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/us/anti-semitism-attacks-violence.html.
The Root Institute 2021: Unpacking the attacks on critical race theory. The Root. Other
  • M Harriot
Harriot, M. (2021, September 21). The Root Institute 2021: Unpacking the attacks on critical race theory. The Root. Other. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.theroot.com/the-root-institute-2021-unpacking-the-attacks-oncriti-1847711634.