“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

First, there is absolutely no hope of anything like this being applied in a fair and even handed way.

> Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups; assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic

Will the “dignity” of white people preclude publishing academic research suggesting there should be race segregated spaces in colleges? Will these rules be applied to protect the dignity of white Appalachians? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Second, insofar as elite whites have very different views of minorities than minorities themselves do, these rules will be used to suppress research that both comports with what minorities themselves believe and what the data could show is in their best interest. For example, Raj Chetty’s recent research showing that the two most important community factors for upward mobility for Black kids is (1) low racism among white people in the area; and (2) high levels of fathers present in the home (even if the child’s own father is not present): https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-black-boys-family-structure-s...

White liberal academics love the former finding but hate the latter finding, and these rules absolutely will distort the research that comes out as a result. (If you weren’t an Indian guy in the UK, might you be incentivized to just run with the first finding and not the second?)

> Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics.

And who gets to define what’s “racist?” “Good” white people: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ (“Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”).

Social sciences have so little credibility to begin with. They shouldn’t be shredding it by creating rules that will require them to put political concerns ahead of the truth.

The peer reviewed journal has not scaled well. Instead of actually ensuring the validity and integrity of claims it merely acts as a middle man extracting wealth. There re better ways to get the same benefit in the 21st century. Maybe if they actually verified experimental data they would still have a use. But they don't do that.

It's too powerful of a manipulation and control tool for the elites to just give up on. If we can just replace "god says" with "science says" and have the same result of getting the sheep in line, then of course it will happen.

No, it's not fair to conclude.

A lot of us as practitioners in the field (engineers, data scientists, etc) must daily confront the conflict between social expectation (from managers, customers, etc.) and reality. On the other hand, an academic occupying a largely bureaucratic role within institutions that suffer from severe political monoculture might very well care more about their social standing than truth.

Anyone who has been paying attention will know the subtext of these guides. It is not an unreasonable assumption to see this as targeting legitimate scientific research that undermines the present political zeitgeist.

It's not true.