Exploring the Intersection of Grievance Studies and Academia
Written on
Definition of Grievance
Grievance A grievance is defined as a perceived or actual wrong or reason for complaint, particularly relating to unfair treatment. Usage: "failure to address legitimate grievances" Synonyms: injustice, unfairness, offense, wrong, injury.
My Journey as Grievance Committee Chair
During my undergraduate years at UCLA, I was active in various student organizations, which is common in large public universities. One organization appointed me as Chair of several committees, focusing particularly on my role in the Grievance Committee.
Officially, our committee was tasked with addressing internal disputes among members. We collected information and, if warranted, presented recommendations to the general assembly. The Grievance Chair also enforced bylaws and imposed summary punishments for serious infractions that could harm individuals or the organization.
While this structure seemed sound, I learned valuable lessons about the true nature of grievances and the shortcomings of institutional safeguards.
Our committee consisted of three individuals from diverse backgrounds responsible for mediating disputes, issuing warnings, and suggesting disciplinary measures for a vote.
Key Observations
Subjectivity of Grievances
The definition of grievance begins with a critical phrase: "A real or imagined wrong…". This indicates that a grievance can exist regardless of its factual basis. I often saw individuals react defensively when facing a grievance, and many perceived slights stemmed from misunderstandings. Consequently, the stories could devolve into hearsay, making it our job to establish the truth.
Grievances as Tools of Retribution
A grievance serves as a complaint against another individual. I observed that these complaints often aimed to expose injustices experienced by the complainant. Unfortunately, our system allowed grievances to become weapons used against others.
A significant flaw in our organization was the anonymous filing of grievances, complicating my role as Chair. It was challenging to discern the source of complaints and the extent of hearsay involved. Any decision made by the committee could be perceived as unjust, regardless of the evidence, leading to ostracism of those who deviated from the accepted norms.
Predetermined Outcomes
Most grievances resulted in votes that almost always led to disciplinary actions, regardless of the committee's recommendations. I can’t recall a single instance where a vote concluded without punishment. These discussions were often emotionally charged, overshadowing the facts presented by the committee. After my term, I realized that many student organizations had similarly structured committees, including the Student Government and official University Councils.
The Current State of Academia
I graduated from UCLA feeling emotionally drained, a common experience for many students. With an engineering degree, I could have quickly found a job, but I chose to pursue graduate studies. I began to question my complicity in a flawed system, initially attributing my experience to my inexperience. However, as I became more involved in higher education, I recognized that the issues I witnessed in undergraduate organizations mirrored broader trends at higher levels.
There is a concerning trend in academia that threatens the integrity of many institutions responsible for knowledge dissemination. In 2017, a group of left-leaning academics initiated a covert project to assess whether political ideology was compromising academic integrity, rather than relying on reason and evidence.
Academics James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian noted that certain academic fields were increasingly influenced by political perspectives, impacting how they educated future generations. They aimed to determine whether prominent academic journals could differentiate between legitimate research and fraudulent studies. Their focus included fields like cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies, many of which advocate for the concept of intersectionality. They ultimately coined the term "grievance studies" for this subset of academia.
This hoax unfolded throughout 2018, culminating in the exposure of a fictitious author, Helen Wilson, who was a pseudonym used by the trio.
Summary of Initial Findings
The following points summarize the publicly shared results of their project:
- The trio authored 20 papers, with 7 accepted, 4 published, and 10 receiving positive reviews.
- An additional 7 papers are in progress, and 3 are under consideration.
- They were invited to peer-review 4 times, which they declined for ethical reasons.
- The combined word count of their papers reached 177,694.
Accepted Papers
- Code Name: "Dog Park" — Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon (Recognized as leading scholarship)
- Code Name: "Dildos" — Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use
- Code Name: "Feminist Mein Kampf" — Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism
- Code Name: "Fat Bodybuilding" — Who Are They to Judge?: Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding
- Code Name: "Joke’s on You" — When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire
- Code Name: "Hooters" — An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant
- Code Name: "Moon Meetings" — Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality