The writer is in Australia.
Mark Cuban is an American billionaire. He’s worth some six billion U.S. dollars made largely from tech investments (sold before the dotcom bubble burst) and from selling cheap generic prescription drugs. He also appeared for years on the U.S. version of the reality TV show Shark Tank (a.k.a. Dragons’ Den). Oh, and he was the owner of the NBA franchise Dallas Mavericks. I say ‘was’ because just a couple of months ago he sold his controlling interest in that team. (I think that’s in part because the NBA’s TV ratings have plummeted over the past three decades – when Michael Jordan played it could get up to 30 million TV viewers for a top game and now it’s lucky to get four or five million, a loss of five sixths (around 85%) of its U.S. audience. Blame the league’s incredible Left-wing wokeness and a much-deteriorated product since the Bird-Magic 1980s for anyone who knows his or her basketball – including ‘load management’, way too many trifling fouls called but at the same time some key rules not enforced, stars favoured by the refs, no defence played, the list goes on into the sunset. U.S. college basketball is the place to be if you want to watch good basketball, full stop.
But back to Mr. Cuban. Last week he got caught up in a Twitter fight with, amongst others, Elon Musk. At one point Cuban was something of a free-thinker but of late he’s been a keen defender of all the usual progressive-Left shibboleths, not unlike what Australia’s corporate class revealed itself to be during the Voice referendum. Last week it was DEI or ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ policies that Cuban was defending. Cuban wrote on X/Twitter: “Treating people equally does not mean treating them same.” He also wrote that “diversity [helped businesses] by employing people others do not”.
Did you spot the fallacies in these claims? Elon Musk sure did. In a one line put down for the ages Musk replied: “Cool, so when should we expect to see short white/Asian women on the [Dallas] Mavericks [NBA team]?” Remember, that’s the NBA team Cuban owned. And, of course, the NBA is the least ‘inclusive’ employer in the world. Its employees look nothing like the wider American population. Some 90% of the league’s players are black whereas the black share of the overall U.S. population is only about 13%. In fact, the whole U.S. Olympic basketball team, made up of NBA stars, is 100% black. This is as it should be because they’re the best players. It’s simple. Professional sports is a meritocracy; it is not a top-down HR-engineered ‘equality of outcome’ world. (I refer to the competitors not the team executives.) No team owner aims for ‘cosmetic diversity’ in sports. And revealingly, no one on the progressive Left argues for more white basketball players, or even more Asians or Hispanics. You see, sport reveals everything that is fundamentally wrong with DEI; its core undermining of equality and its undercutting the ability to produce the best possible product. This is so obvious in top level U.S. sports, and there is so much at stake monetarily, that no one with skin in the game dabbles in the idiocies of DEI thinking in terms of the team they put on the court. Not even Mark Cuban as an owner of an NBA team. That was the point Elon Musk was making.
Cuban’s tweets amounted to deliberate obfuscation. Of course, if you find a smart, hard-working Vietnamese (or any other) immigrant who outperforms white candidates you should hire him (or her). That, however, is not what DEI demands. No, DEI is premised on ‘equality of outcome’, on getting the same statistical percentages of a group into some highly desirable job X (it’s only ever good jobs or emoluments) as they represent in the wider population. Let me be blunt. ‘Equity’ is the polar opposite of equality of opportunity. Drill down and you see it seeks equality of outcome, full stop. That’s the game all variations of affirmative action are playing. It’s just that DEI is one of the most malign and pernicious variants.
Go back to Cuban’s claim that “treating people equally does not mean treating them the same”. This is classic ‘equity’ thinking. It is premised on the belief that equality is a demand for equal outcomes in some “deliver us the same group percentages here as in the general population” way. In fact, ‘equity’ necessarily presupposes that all differences, everywhere and all the time, are the result of discrimination and nothing else. That’s why it requires treating people unequally based on race and other immutable characteristics. And that’s why Musk also tweeted back to Cuban that “DEI is just another word for racism”.
Musk is surely right about that. One of the most important battles all conservatives (and classical liberals for that matter) have to fight is to eliminate the HR DEI bureaucracies everywhere. We need them gone from the public service, from the big law firms, from the big corporations and from the universities. Take the last of these, which I know only too well. A recent report in the U.S. revealed that at just two major U.S. state universities (Ohio State and the University of Michigan) there were over 100 DEI commissars (my term) employed. And they earned over US$10 million per year cumulatively – at just two of hundreds and hundreds of U.S. universities. Now don’t kid yourself. Our Australian universities are also chock full of these massively overpaid DEI bureaucrats whose core remit is to undermine merit and equality of opportunity. So tell me we don’t have an ideological problem in our unis and that this isn’t a core cause! (The search for cosmetic diversity is also a core cause in the collapse of viewpoint diversity, as an aside.)
Well, at least in a few U.S. States we are now seeing Republican legislators doing something about this. Some are completely defunding the DEI bureaucracies in the state universities. There are moves to stop state governments from contracting with big companies that enforce DEI policies. My Lord, my kingdom for an Australian Liberal Party [the country’s largest centre-Right party] that might actually do any of those things! I’ll be blunt. The first step to reforming our wholly broken universities (those rankings of world universities are a complete joke by the way, as every insider knows) is to completely defund the entire DEI bureaucracies. Because as things stand now, does any reader really believe that in today’s universities a young white male gets equal treatment with non-whites and with women as regards available scholarships, consideration for job openings, for promotions, pick your favourite criterion?
Elon Musk is right. Mark Cuban is wrong. It’s time for our Right-of-centre politicians to grow a spine and do something about this. That’s a wish, not a serious expectation.
James Allan is the Garrick Professor of Law at Queensland University. This article first appeared in Spectator Australia.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great article. Thanks for this very informative insight into the peer review process.
“Science” turned into “Official Science” and waved through for political purposes.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. It challenges how we, as lay people, trust scientific reports and those behind them.
In one organisation where I used to work, we wrote engineering reports. These had to be thoroughly checked by a fellow employee and then authorised by our group leader. The group leader would quiz the checker thoroughly – “to shake his tree” – to see that he had grasped the report’s contents and could defend them. If the checker fell out of his tree, he would return bruised to the author and demand corrections.
This seems to be quite a rigorous process. Authors may tend to seek kudos and over-sell their reports. But if that task is given to a checker who does not stand to gain anything, there will be more critical appraisal.
Peer review is no guarantee of truth or accuracy. The reviewer of extensive reports or papers do not have the time to check every claim thoroughly. ——-Classic example is “The Hockey Stick Graph”
Indeed. Yet another nail in the coffin of peer review – so-named, I guess, because it tends to just ‘peer’ rather than to check.
We always hear from activists that something is “peer reviewed”. And the idea is to give the impression to the general public who are reluctant to question anything to do with science that this is all perfectly understood or settled knowledge. It may well be, but not because it has been peer reviewed. It is only good quality science if the scientific method has been followed and the results can be replicated.
Interesting but I have one lingering question: who pays the for-profit journals? How do they make their money? In other words, if so much of what is published is garbage, who is interested in paying for garbage studies?
Excellent point
Whenever I come across an organisation unfamiliar to me I start by trying to find out how they are funded and who runs it
An interesting read; thanks
I guess some kind of quality control is needed to prevent overload, but I can’t help thinking that it’s preferable to have random junk published than having only specially selected junk that fits a narrative
You’re right as in addition to the random junk there will be the innovative ideas and theories that may currently be suppressed because it hurts too many expert reputations, might undermine a lucrative industry or might benefit humanity in general.
Exactly – any not just innovative ideas and theories but also debunkings of nonsense like “thermostat theory” as stewart puts it.
You know this.
I know this.
But who are we?
Over the last 25 years I trained more than 20,000 people in project management peer review on some of the world’s most complex products. I became the global lead in my craft and learned more from my delegates than I ever knew myself.
Whilst this doesn’t guarantee I’m always right, it does entitle me to an opinion.
Peer Review requires two essential components: subject matter expertise (you know what you’re talking about); and a relative level of political independence.
This independence can vary. For example, a low value, low risk, low complexity project with little strategic importance can be reviewed by your mate on the next desk.
Now change all those ‘lows’ to ‘highs’ and you’re looking for a different beast, probably from outside your political organisation who can speak without fear of consequence (‘its rubbish!’) or personal benefit.
Compromise either the expertise or independence and the review is not only meaninglessness but dangerous, conferring integrity where there is none.
Humility and an open mind are also essential components.
The COVID business has already led to a process of secondary peer review, where published papers are dissected (and destroyed) by worldwide people with an interest and expertise. This alone makes one question the formal process of anonymous review by selected individuals. I have been a reviewer and have experienced much of the author’s problems. I have also written papers and report another side to the whole thing. I submitted one paper to a prestigious journal and it was turned down – with the rider that if I was prepared to pay $1500 they would publish it online. I submitted elsewhere, to another prestigious journal and it was accepted instantly. My stats site told me last week it had had 10000 reads…
Perhaps all papers should appear online first, and those who put them up can be persuaded to go to print, or not, depending on the online critics.