University Bans Research Because It Might Reach Politically Incorrect Conclusion
A researcher has been refused permission to study cases of people who have surgery to reverse gender reassignment by a university that said it risked generating controversy on social media sites.When leftists claim that “science” shows that gay parenting is as good as straight parenting, or that there is man-made catastrophic global warming or that Americans are racist, some questions have to be asked:
The proposal was rejected with an explanation noting that it was a potentially “politically incorrect” piece of research and could lead to material being posted online that “may be detrimental to the reputation of the institution”.
James Caspian, a psychotherapist, who wanted to conduct the research for a master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University, accused it of failing to follow “the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry”.
Mr Caspian, 58, a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people, embarked on the research after speaking to a surgeon who had carried out operations to reverse gender reassignment surgery, as people came to regret their decision.
Mr Caspian was at first given approval by Bath Spa for his research, which needed clearance from the university’s ethics sub-committee in order for him to conduct the interviews.
He was, however, unable to find people willing to take part and asked to amend the proposal for his master’s so that it would include women who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women, but without reversing their surgery.
Mr Caspian also asked if he could post a request on an online forum for people working in this field — the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — as a means of recruiting participants.
He was told this would require a new submission to the university’s ethics sub-committee which, after discussion with the dean of the relevant department, rejected this request. On the sub-committee’s rejection form, it said: “Engaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the university.
“Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university.”
Under a section on ethical issues needing further consideration, it added: “The posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university.”
“Was there potential research that wasn’t done because it was forbidden due to a possibly politically incorrect outcome?”
And . . .
“Was there potential research that was never proposed because the person who might have done it anticipated a hassle, and perhaps career damage?”
And, probably most important . . .
“Was there potential research that was never done because leftist social scientists were not interested in any research that might lead to a politically incorrect outcome?”
When the social sciences become corrupt, sensible citizens will tend to ignore them.