Post

Also see... 2/n

anw sign here: www.change.org/p/stop-the-h... > In these venues he has repeatedly advanced claims about the supposed cognitive inferiority of Black people , along with broader arguments about the “feminization” of academia and suggestions that eugenic ideas deserve renewed scientific consideration.

He's not in some marginal place or unemployed or anything. > UGent has defended its decision, stating that Cofnas was selected through a "procedurally correct" process that evaluated candidates based on qualifications like publications and expertise. www.brusselstimes.com/2007046/ghen... 3/n

brusselstimes.comGhent University under fire for appointing US philosopher with ties to 'scientific racism'Concerns have been raised about Nathan Cofnas due to his association with controversial "race science."

65 reposts243 likes

We were given permission to share it individually. Central administration concurred in it having to be taken off the website "because it might confuse people and make them think that this is Ghent University's position, not just the department's"

Great read. I think especially the quote:"racist claims are certainly worth investigating. But extraordinary claims require exceptionally strong evidence, and I don’t see any of that here." shows that academic freedom, science, requires evidence (else it's just free speech). 1/3

"In the recruitment of academic staff, budget holders enjoy autonomy that can be abused in extreme cases, but in all cases reflects an outdated management culture" This is a sector wide problem and has been for decades. Professional processes would have prevented not just Cofnas appt but Arday too

5/n

JAM RADIO NEWS@jamradiouk.bsky.social

Professor Kehinde Andrews speaks to BBC Newsnight following the tragic death of Professor Jason Arday. For days, Andrews had warned that Arday was being subjected to what he described as a “dedicated, coordinated smear campaign”. Tonight, his words carry a devastating weight.

From the department statement: Cofnas' writings are ‘the academic version of “flood the zone with shit” (Steve Bannon’s famous statement about the Trump campaign in 2016): spread controversial, unsubstantiated claims that others must respond to.’