Ahmet Korkaya, then a medical student, wrote in a private conversation in May 2024 that he was "gonna be the dirtiest fuc*ing doctor ever," and that he was "gonna be [V-l]'s doctor /poison her ass slowly." V-l was Sarah Hubbard, a regent at the University of Michigan. Korkaya's co-conspirators would descend on her house, trash her property with "dismembered and bloody baby dolls," threaten her directly, and spread those threats on social media. What was Hubbard's crime? Leading a university that did not divest from Israel and Israel-supporting businesses. Note that there have been a spate of doctors publicly espousing the same worldview as Korkaya since October 7th. They may likewise pose a threat to their patients, and society more broadly.

8 anti-Israel activists have been charged for allegedly conspiring to intimidate UMich leaders and others by vandalizing their homes and offices. “They also discussed methods by which to harm the targets and their families, including poison, bombs, and psychological torture.”

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists. As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them. But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed. After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)? Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate? Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never). Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal? The editors said it was too much, they explained. The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so. It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life. And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it. Still fawning after all these years.

Today, the @CivilRights Division added 15 medical schools to its investigations into potential race discrimination in admissions. 
 
@TheJusticeDept is laser-focused on ensuring that merit—not race—determines who will join America’s next generation of doctors. justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d…

Why are residency programs disciplining and dismissing trainees in a system funded to train them? trib.al/Ku2wUv2

Out of a sample of 100 Doctor of Education dissertations, over half contained some amount of AI-generated text. Research done in collaboration with Pangram. Link to full paper in replies.

🚨A widely cited Trevor Project paper from 2 yrs ago concluded that state restrictions on youth gender transition increase youth suicide risk. But a new peer-reviewed reanalysis shows the signal came from a single state, Idaho—which had no such restrictions during the study. /1

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE! We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.” But that’s not really true. Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear. And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense. This isn’t exactly new. In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship. Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory. The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing. And today, the problem is even worse. We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.” But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults. That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children. And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.” That is untenable. So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.” The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it. A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks. Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention? If yes, it gets published. And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue. That’s how science is supposed to work. Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen. That’s what we’ve done. Now it’s time for academics to use it. Read our announcement on the @WSJ below. 🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-to-cha…

Woman spotted ripping down a missing child poster for Esti, a missing 14-year-old Jewish girl. Deplorable.