ANTI-HE HIT PIECE ALERT

There are over 200 000 academic staff currently employed at UK universities. This diligent investigation has uncovered *ONE* serving academic in the UK who has done what's described in the headline. It's not the man in the picture. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-academics-sharing-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-online-v8nn99zmv

The one British academic who did the thing described is Professor Tim Hayward of the University of Edinburgh ( http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/people/academic_staff/hayward_tim). Fair enough. He sounds like a dolt. (Is he "prominent"? Anyone who gets mentioned in the Times is ipso facto more prominent than, eg, me, so OK)

The article focuses far more, however, on Piers Robinson, an ex-academic who was, to use a technical term, run out of the University of Sheffield on a rail for being bad and wrong, and who has seemingly not since held an academic contract. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/piers-robinson_uk_5cb5d5b5e4b082aab08c953f

(Note this, apparently in response to the question "Could you please say the thing that would logically be paragraph 4 of my article?"

Professor Hayward perhaps has the access described; Dr Robinson does not, beyond the background level achievable by shouting out of the window.)

As justification, the article points to the actions of David Miller, a political sociologist at the University of Bristol.

And Professor Miller sounds like another dolt. The thing is, the piece presents no evidence that he has done the thing described in the newspaper headline.

The article then draws attention to Hayward, Robinson and Miller's links to an academic who is not UK-based and a journalist/blogger who is not an academic.

This is a "these five people" problem. It's not a "British academics" problem.

The article then hops about like a chaffinch on acid between numerous valid but unconnected statements which will leave anyone who's paying attention with severe whiplash, but will doubtless have the intended effect (HE = Bad) for the intended audience if they read that far.

As usual, this dispiriting display is fuelled by what could have been something decent. There are serious questions on academic tolerance of messages and behaviours that – choosing my words carefully here – may tend to foster antisemitism and/or documentary falsification, and

Hayward's "retweet != endorsement" defence is both irresponsible and embarrassing.

What I object to is the cynical way this kernel is pummelled clumsily into another bloody Damned Academics Filling Our Kids' Heads With Nonsense piece.

In one of its many non-sequiturs, the article does at least acknowledge that at least one British academic is actively opposed to lethal pandemics.

There is a glimmering of the usual "STEM=good, AHSS=bad" framing here... but even that's not present in the headline.

In my experience (which only covers real universities, not the ones in the newspapers), epidemiologists actually talk to social scientists and policy analysts (the ones who actually do the job properly), and it's clear that multiple forms of expertise are needed.

This being the case: while I would not accept there is a *good* time to insinuate in the national press that my entire profession is comprised of malevolent dipshits, I would venture to suggest that now, in particular, is a *very* *bad* time. /ends

(Apparently necessary clarification because Twitter: this thread is in no way meant to defend or excuse people I characterise as "dolts", "bad and wrong" or "malevolent dipshits". It was not my intention to say the opposite of what I said, and I apologise for my existence.)