{"id":106284,"date":"2020-06-10T07:31:11","date_gmt":"2020-06-10T05:31:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/hundredvis-af-forskere-beskylder-ole-waever-for-mobbekampagne\/"},"modified":"2022-05-20T15:22:02","modified_gmt":"2022-05-20T13:22:02","slug":"hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/","title":{"rendered":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign"},"content":{"rendered":"

First the academic work of Ole W\u00e6ver was vilified. Now his own response to the criticism is the cause of outrage among colleagues.<\/p>\n

In several open letters, hundreds of researchers criticise Professor Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan for being behind a campaign against Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. The researchers had accused W\u00e6ver and Buzan’s theory of securitisation of being based on \u00bbmethodological whiteness\u00ab and contain \u00bbanti-black racism\u00ab in the journal Security Dialogue<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Two petitions have a particularly biting turn of phrase, according to the magazine Weekendavisen.<\/p>\n

READ ALSO:<\/strong> Peace researcher Ole W\u00e6ver accused of racism: \u00bbI’ve never felt so bad about my life as an academic\u00ab<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

In one, called Security Studies Backlash \u2013 A Feminist Response<\/a>, W\u00e6ver and Buzan are accused of being behind \u00bban orchestrated assault\u00ab on Howell and Richter-Montpetit and using silencing techniques of the type that is designed to silence, say, women, ethnic minorities and anti-racist scholars.<\/p>\n

The authors of the letter note for example that W\u00e6ver and Buzan have written a defence of nearly one hundred pages and have reportedly mobilised supporters on social media.<\/p>\n

\u00bbWe’re absolutely horrified by this tactic and by this attack. We view what is happening here as a form of violence, mobilised by scholars who ostensibly abhor violence but who are now responsible for the toxic and dangerous environment of harassment and intimidation their actions have produced,\u00ab the letter states, and is signed by over 250 researchers.<\/p>\n

A threat to research freedom<\/h3>\n

Even more, 430 at the time of writing, have signed another letter,<\/a> addressed to the journal Security Dialogue. Here too, the authors accuse W\u00e6ver and Buzan of being behind a bullying campaign and of giving ammunition to the extreme right by using terms such as deep-fake<\/em> methods and cancel culture<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They point to W\u00e6ver and Buzan wanting Security Dialogue to retract the article, just like the two have announced in a letter to about 400 colleagues that they will no longer send articles to the journal if the current management continues, or if it continues to publish \u00bbmalicious research of low quality.\u00ab In the same letter they write that Ole W\u00e6ver intends to leave the journal\u2019s editor group.<\/p>\n

SIGN UP FOR THE UNIVERSITY POST NEWSLETTER HERE<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

This has the authors of the petition writing that Buzan and W\u00e6ver not only attack anti-racist research, but also academic freedom in general. They find it \u00bbextremely troubling,\u00ab that they are allegedly calling on Security Dialogue to introduce special procedures for articles on race and racism.<\/p>\n

In a third open letter<\/a>, the so-called Colonial, Postcolonial and Decolonial groups of the British International Studies Association write that W\u00e6ver and Buzan, in their defence, do not take critical racial studies seriously as an academic field. They fear, they add, that their counteroffensive will discourage young scholars from engaging with race and colonialism in international politics research.<\/p>\n

Silence from the authors<\/h3>\n

The letters are signed by prominent scholars. The first petition in particular has prominent names on it, including Cynthia Enloe, who is a leading figure in the feminist branch of research in international politics. The letter to Security Dialogue includes signatures by distinguished American professors Lisa Duggan and Caren Kaplan.<\/p>\n

We’re absolutely horrified by this tactic and by this attack. We view what is happening here as a form of violence<\/p>\n

Open letter, signed by Cynthia Enloe<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The University Post has tried to get a number of the researchers behind the three letters to elaborate on their criticism, but none of them would be interviewed.<\/p>\n

Lisa Duggan refers to three researchers who are reportedly the lead authors behind the letter to Security Dialogue, including professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, Paul Amar. But Amar refuses to be interviewed.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIt is important for us signatories to respect the text of the letter we wrote to the editors of Security Dialogue. We stand by that letter word-for-word. But I will not do interviews or chats about this matter,\u00ab he writes in an email.<\/p>\n

The message is the same from one of the main authors of the second petition, Professor of Political Science at York University, Sandra Whitworth.<\/p>\n

\u00bbThose of us who wrote the statement feel it expresses our views and describes what motivated us, and since it was arrived at collectively we would rather let the statement speak for us,\u00ab she writes.<\/p>\n

It has not been possible either to get a comment from the researchers behind the BISA letter.<\/p>\n

Misguided criticism<\/h3>\n

Ole W\u00e6ver, on the other hand, would like to respond to the criticism.<\/p>\n

He says the petition which includes Cynthia Enloe is \u00bbthe worst one\u00ab, not just because it has prominent signatories, but because, according to W\u00e6ver, the authors distort and simplify the debate when they accuse W\u00e6ver and Buzan of using silencing techniques:<\/p>\n

\u00bbThey block out the whole question of whether there is a problem with the original article, and turn it into a narrative about two younger women writing an article about two older men who couldn’t take criticism,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n

READ ALSO:<\/strong> Ole W\u00e6ver wants to win the argument on his critics’ own terms. That\u2019s what makes it really interesting<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\u00bbAnyone can relate to this story. It’s easy to see who you have to side with. It’s effective because everyone forgets to think about whether the original article actually holds water.\u00ab<\/p>\n

It makes perfect sense that I don’t want to be a part of an editorial team in a journal that has exposed me to this.<\/p>\n

Ole W\u00e6ver. Professor, Department of Political Science<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

According to W\u00e6ver, many of the researchers who have signed the letter have probably never read a single sentence about securitisation. They simply want to criticise racism, the bullying of young researchers, and the \u00bbthin-skinned senior researchers,\u00ab who lead campaigns against critics, he says.<\/p>\n

If this was the case, Ole W\u00e6ver himself could have signed the letter. But this is not the case, according to him. According to W\u00e6ver, the petitions are based on the misconception that Howell and Richter-Montpetit’s article is a normal academic critique of a theory, when in fact it is an example of faulty science.<\/p>\n

W\u00e6ver criticises the article in such dismissive terms, because is not about critical race studies, quite the opposite, he says. The article which accuses his theory of being racist is of such poor quality that it is a parody of the field.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIt’s misguided to say this is silencing. Because this means that our criticism is directed at all race-critical research \u2013 as if any article that uses critical race studies can be withdrawn in the future. On the contrary, it is a question of this particular article not living up to the standards of the field. And in order to save that field and to insist that good and solid research can be carried out within it, we have to say that this article is not good enough. Even in our short answer, this is actually quite clear.\u00ab<\/p>\n

The rats are missing<\/h3>\n

For the same reason, W\u00e6ver rejects the idea that his defence was a threat to freedom of research, as it states in the petition sent to Security Dialogue.<\/p>\n

He calls several of the points in the open letter \u00bbpretty far out.\u00ab<\/p>\n

As he has previously told the newspaper Weekendavisen, the email he sent to about four hundred colleagues was not part of a boycott campaign, as he thinks the petition claims. And he also defends his statement that he intends to leave the Security Dialogue editorial team:<\/p>\n

\u00bbIt makes perfect sense that I don’t want to be a part of an editorial team in a journal that has exposed me to this. It is not only about the article, but also the refusal to cooperate on subsequent solutions.\u00ab<\/p>\n

He knows that it is unusual to demand the withdrawal of a peer-reviewed article in a subject where the line between right and wrong is often contested. But it’s an unusual situation, he says, and draws parallels to the case of the brain scientist Milena Penkowa at the University of Copenhagen. She had articles retracted and was stripped of her doctorate after she was found to have breached good scientific conduct and found out to have fabricated experiments in rats.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIt’s the same with this article. There are no rats here either. The data on which [Howell and Richter-Montpetit] base their analysis is just as flawed. Point for point, they claim to have found something in our texts that is not there.\u00ab<\/p>\n

The authors behind the open letter to the Security Dialogue criticise W\u00e6ver and Buzan for attacking the journal’s peer review process. W\u00e6ver himself, however, says he does not want to challenge the peers\u2019 selection and assessment.<\/p>\n

This criticism is deeply incriminating because it accuses my entire work of being carried out in the service of racism.<\/p>\n

Ole W\u00e6ver, Professor, Department of Political Science<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Instead, he points out that the article should have been rooted out following post-publication rules that state that journals need established procedures to correct, revise or withdraw already published articles if serious errors have been found.<\/p>\n

\u00bbIn the Penkowa and rats case, we should not have to expect that the peer reviewers had bought 700 rats themselves and done the same experiment. And the same applies here,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n

\u00bbThe peer review is based on the data provided by the authors, but they ended up publishing an article that could not hold water. That is why there are rules for withdrawing an article, even though there is little precedent to do so in our own field.\u00ab<\/p>\n

A long, determined defence<\/h3>\n

In the open letters, the authors highlight that Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan considered it necessary to write a 98-page defence, almost five times the length of Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit’s original article.<\/p>\n

The question is, would they have really need to use so many pages, if the criticism didn\u2019t have a grain of truth in it?<\/p>\n

\u00bbI’ve never ever written such a long answer based on normal criticism. But this criticism is deeply incriminating because it accuses my entire work of being carried out in the service of racism. I cannot treat this like any other form of criticism. This is ridiculous. Of course I’ve invested myself in this in a completely different way,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n

\u00bbApart from this, in the long response we take critical race studies seriously and discuss what should be done in racism and security research, even if the critics claim that we do not.\u00ab<\/p>\n

Your language has been criticised too, partly because you use words like deep-fake. Have you regretted using words like that?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00bbI know that if you reduce this to a kindergarten level, it’s about one side slinging insults at the other, who then slings back another one. But in my naivety, I didn’t think the research world was like that.\u00ab<\/p>\n

\u00bbI don’t use deep-fake methodology as an insult, but as a very precise concept. The logic is that you can take a video recording of me giving a lecture, and break it down into little digital chunks, then splice it together with some other footage, and suddenly I appear in a porn video. Just like you can get Barack Obama to say he was born in Kenya.\u00ab<\/p>\n

\u00bbThat’s exactly what they’re doing. The social and cultural sciences have 350 years of history in discussing how to read and analyse texts. If we just do what the two researchers have done, then we destroy large parts of the humanities and social sciences.\u00ab<\/p>\n

But do you understand that your language has been seen as incendiary?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00bbI understand that,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n

\u00bbI hope there’s going to be a day when all this has calmed down, where we can dive down into the concepts and discuss them.\u00ab<\/p>\n

Melanie Richter-Montpetit and Alison Howell could not be reached for comment.<\/em><\/p>\n

Translated by Mike Young<\/em>
\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a series of open letters, Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan are said to be behind \u00bban orchestrated attack\u00ab and \u00bba form of violence\u00ab after defending their academic work against racism charges. W\u00e6ver himself says that the criticism is full of misunderstandings and wild claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67,"featured_media":106014,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[3491,3614,3608,3497,3498,3610,3611,3612,3613,3500],"class_list":["post-106284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science","tag-alison-howell-en","tag-copenhagen-school","tag-cynthia-enloe-en","tag-melanie-richter-montpetit-en","tag-ole-waever-en","tag-paul-amar-en","tag-race-en","tag-sandra-whitworth-en","tag-securitisation","tag-security-dialogue-en","expression-news_article"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\nHundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a series of open letters, Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan are said to be behind \u00bban orchestrated attack\u00ab and \u00bba form of violence\u00ab after defending their academic work against racism charges. W\u00e6ver himself says that the criticism is full of misunderstandings and wild claims.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"University Post\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uniavis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-1280x853.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"853\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rasmus Friis\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In a series of open letters, Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan are said to be behind \u00bban orchestrated attack\u00ab and \u00bba form of violence\u00ab after defending their academic work against racism charges. W\u00e6ver himself says that the criticism is full of misunderstandings and wild claims.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@Uniavisen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Uniavisen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rasmus Friis\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Rasmus Friis\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010\"},\"headline\":\"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2028,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Alison Howell\",\"Copenhagen school\",\"Cynthia Enloe\",\"Melanie Richter-Montpetit\",\"Ole W\u00e6ver\",\"Paul Amar\",\"race\",\"Sandra Whitworth\",\"securitisation\",\"Security Dialogue\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Science\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/\",\"name\":\"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707,\"caption\":\"Professor i statskundskab, Ole W\u00e6ver. Photo: Jonas Pryner Andersen\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/\",\"name\":\"University Post\",\"description\":\"Independent of management\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010\",\"name\":\"Rasmus Friis\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rasmus Friis\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uniavisen.dk\\\/en\\\/author\\\/rasmus\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post","og_description":"In a series of open letters, Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan are said to be behind \u00bban orchestrated attack\u00ab and \u00bba form of violence\u00ab after defending their academic work against racism charges. W\u00e6ver himself says that the criticism is full of misunderstandings and wild claims.","og_url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/","og_site_name":"University Post","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uniavis","article_published_time":"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":853,"url":"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-1280x853.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Rasmus Friis","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_description":"In a series of open letters, Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan are said to be behind \u00bban orchestrated attack\u00ab and \u00bba form of violence\u00ab after defending their academic work against racism charges. W\u00e6ver himself says that the criticism is full of misunderstandings and wild claims.","twitter_creator":"@Uniavisen","twitter_site":"@Uniavisen","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rasmus Friis","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/"},"author":{"name":"Rasmus Friis","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010"},"headline":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign","datePublished":"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/"},"wordCount":2028,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg","keywords":["Alison Howell","Copenhagen school","Cynthia Enloe","Melanie Richter-Montpetit","Ole W\u00e6ver","Paul Amar","race","Sandra Whitworth","securitisation","Security Dialogue"],"articleSection":["Science"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/","name":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign \u2014 University Post","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg","datePublished":"2020-06-10T05:31:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-20T13:22:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707,"caption":"Professor i statskundskab, Ole W\u00e6ver. Photo: Jonas Pryner Andersen"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundreds-of-scientists-accuse-ole-waever-of-bullying-campaign\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hundreds of scientists accuse Ole W\u00e6ver of bullying campaign"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/","name":"University Post","description":"Independent of management","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/#\/schema\/person\/e02d6b9868f21687575cf05cd4f8d010","name":"Rasmus Friis","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Rasmus Friis"},"url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/author\/rasmus\/"}]}},"advancedCustomFields":{"expression":{"term_id":15,"name":"News Article","slug":"news_article","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":15,"taxonomy":"expression","description":"","parent":0,"count":11487,"filter":"raw"},"enable_comments":true,"align_content":"alignleft","feature_color":"","layout_group":[{"acf_fc_layout":"Headline","use_post_title":true,"headline":"","style":"default","highlighted_words":"","text_size":"small"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Image","image":{"ID":106013,"id":106013,"title":"Professor i statskundskab, Ole W\u00e6ver","filename":"ole_waever_k6a3085-scaled.jpg","filesize":1098472,"url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-scaled.jpg","link":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/hundredvis-af-forskere-beskylder-ole-waever-for-mobbekampagne\/professor-i-statskundskab-ole-waever-photo-jonas-pryner-andersen-10\/","alt":"ole w\u00e6ver","author":"71","description":"","caption":"","name":"professor-i-statskundskab-ole-waever-photo-jonas-pryner-andersen-10","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":106060,"date":"2020-06-02 19:27:51","modified":"2020-06-04 06:38:57","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","type":"image","subtype":"jpeg","icon":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/default.png","width":2560,"height":1707,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-150x150.jpg","thumbnail-width":150,"thumbnail-height":150,"medium":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-480x320.jpg","medium-width":480,"medium-height":320,"medium_large":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-768x512.jpg","medium_large-width":768,"medium_large-height":512,"large":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-1280x853.jpg","large-width":1280,"large-height":853,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-1536x1024.jpg","1536x1536-width":1536,"1536x1536-height":1024,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-2048x1365.jpg","2048x2048-width":2048,"2048x2048-height":1365,"featured-soft":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-290x193.jpg","featured-soft-width":290,"featured-soft-height":193,"featured-hard":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-290x180.jpg","featured-hard-width":290,"featured-hard-height":180,"narrow":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-700x467.jpg","narrow-width":700,"narrow-height":467,"extended":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-990x660.jpg","extended-width":990,"extended-height":660}},"style":"full","text_placement":"metadata-below","image_link_url":"","image_link_title":"","caption_prefix":"","enable_alternative_caption":false,"alternative_caption":""},{"acf_fc_layout":"Standfirst","subject":"","text":"This is a story about what will follow","use_post_excerpt":true},{"acf_fc_layout":"Byline","is_author":false,"contributors":[{"use_registered_user":true,"user":{"ID":67,"user_firstname":"Rasmus","user_lastname":"Friis","nickname":"rasmus","user_nicename":"rasmus","display_name":"Rasmus Friis","user_email":"rasmus.friis@uniavisen.dk","user_url":"","user_registered":"2018-01-31 09:36:50","user_description":"","user_avatar":"<img alt='' src='https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=96&d=identicon&r=g' srcset='https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5e63c8484da290a4fdf7a435d972fda1c53e6da4cc7cd9a6e440cb0f28061d48?s=192&d=identicon&r=g 2x' class='avatar avatar-96 photo' height='96' width='96' loading='lazy' decoding='async'\/>"},"contributor_name":"","contributor_title":"","contributor_image":false},{"use_registered_user":true,"user":{"ID":68,"user_firstname":"Drude Morthorst","user_lastname":"Rasmussen","nickname":"drude","user_nicename":"drude","display_name":"Drude Morthorst Rasmussen","user_email":"drude-rasmussen@hotmail.com","user_url":"","user_registered":"2018-07-23 08:22:06","user_description":"","user_avatar":"<img alt='' src='https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a2bc03e954e6c0fe466e22317b6b8fb4c9bf1b0099bb18e0239129596e51a752?s=96&d=identicon&r=g' srcset='https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a2bc03e954e6c0fe466e22317b6b8fb4c9bf1b0099bb18e0239129596e51a752?s=192&d=identicon&r=g 2x' class='avatar avatar-96 photo' height='96' width='96' loading='lazy' decoding='async'\/>"},"contributor_name":"","contributor_title":"","contributor_image":false}]},{"acf_fc_layout":"Content","content":"<p>First the academic work of Ole W\u00e6ver was vilified. Now his own response to the criticism is the cause of outrage among colleagues.<\/p>\n<p>In several open letters, hundreds of researchers criticise Professor Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleague Barry Buzan for being behind a campaign against Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. The researchers had accused W\u00e6ver and Buzan’s theory of securitisation of being based on <a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/prominent-peace-researcher-accused-of-racism-ive-never-felt-so-bad-about-my-life-as-an-academic\/\">\u00bbmethodological whiteness\u00ab and contain \u00bbanti-black racism\u00ab in the journal Security Dialogue<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Two petitions have a particularly biting turn of phrase, according to the magazine Weekendavisen.<\/p>\n<p><strong>READ ALSO:<\/strong> <em><a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/prominent-peace-researcher-accused-of-racism-ive-never-felt-so-bad-about-my-life-as-an-academic\/\">Peace researcher Ole W\u00e6ver accused of racism: \u00bbI’ve never felt so bad about my life as an academic\u00ab<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>In one, called <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/swatipash\/status\/1268097802275557379\">Security Studies Backlash \u2013 A Feminist Response<\/a>, W\u00e6ver and Buzan are accused of being behind \u00bban orchestrated assault\u00ab on Howell and Richter-Montpetit and using silencing techniques of the type that is designed to silence, say, women, ethnic minorities and anti-racist scholars.<\/p>\n<p>The authors of the letter note for example that W\u00e6ver and Buzan have written a defence of nearly one hundred pages and have reportedly mobilised supporters on social media.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbWe’re absolutely horrified by this tactic and by this attack. We view what is happening here as a form of violence, mobilised by scholars who ostensibly abhor violence but who are now responsible for the toxic and dangerous environment of harassment and intimidation their actions have produced,\u00ab the letter states, and is signed by over 250 researchers.<\/p>\n<h3>A threat to research freedom<\/h3>\n<p>Even more, 430 at the time of writing, have signed <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/document\/d\/1Q28qR1PWYpN_4WvDDLP4hatBUVaCvuVPicqHweyDnnc\/edit?fbclid=IwAR0sppTMSxr7bwlhLa4DJBMGXjLm4N3cM2AKrnACRen42s0kpkBPqn_KvHU\">another letter,<\/a> addressed to the journal Security Dialogue. Here too, the authors accuse W\u00e6ver and Buzan of being behind a bullying campaign and of giving ammunition to the extreme right by using terms such as <em>deep-fake<\/em> methods and <em>cancel culture<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>They point to W\u00e6ver and Buzan wanting Security Dialogue to retract the article, just like the two have announced in a letter to about 400 colleagues that they will no longer send articles to the journal if the current management continues, or if it continues to publish \u00bbmalicious research of low quality.\u00ab In the same letter they write that Ole W\u00e6ver intends to leave the journal\u2019s editor group.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mailchi.mp\/adm\/universitypost\"><strong>SIGN UP FOR THE UNIVERSITY POST NEWSLETTER HERE<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This has the authors of the petition writing that Buzan and W\u00e6ver not only attack anti-racist research, but also academic freedom in general. They find it \u00bbextremely troubling,\u00ab that they are allegedly calling on Security Dialogue to introduce special procedures for articles on race and racism.<\/p>\n<p>In a third <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/Tilley101\/status\/1262774614113103873\">open letter<\/a>, the so-called Colonial, Postcolonial and Decolonial groups of the British International Studies Association write that W\u00e6ver and Buzan, in their defence, do not take critical racial studies seriously as an academic field. They fear, they add, that their counteroffensive will discourage young scholars from engaging with race and colonialism in international politics research.<\/p>\n<h3>Silence from the authors<\/h3>\n<p>The letters are signed by prominent scholars. The first petition in particular has prominent names on it, including Cynthia Enloe, who is a leading figure in the feminist branch of research in international politics. The letter to Security Dialogue includes signatures by distinguished American professors Lisa Duggan and Caren Kaplan.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We’re absolutely horrified by this tactic and by this attack. We view what is happening here as a form of violence<\/p>\n<p class=\"quotee\">Open letter, signed by Cynthia Enloe<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The University Post has tried to get a number of the researchers behind the three letters to elaborate on their criticism, but none of them would be interviewed.<\/p>\n<p>Lisa Duggan refers to three researchers who are reportedly the lead authors behind the letter to Security Dialogue, including professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, Paul Amar. But Amar refuses to be interviewed.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIt is important for us signatories to respect the text of the letter we wrote to the editors of Security Dialogue. We stand by that letter word-for-word. But I will not do interviews or chats about this matter,\u00ab he writes in an email.<\/p>\n<p>The message is the same from one of the main authors of the second petition, Professor of Political Science at York University, Sandra Whitworth.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThose of us who wrote the statement feel it expresses our views and describes what motivated us, and since it was arrived at collectively we would rather let the statement speak for us,\u00ab she writes.<\/p>\n<p>It has not been possible either to get a comment from the researchers behind the BISA letter.<\/p>\n<h3>Misguided criticism<\/h3>\n<p>Ole W\u00e6ver, on the other hand, would like to respond to the criticism.<\/p>\n<p>He says the petition which includes Cynthia Enloe is \u00bbthe worst one\u00ab, not just because it has prominent signatories, but because, according to W\u00e6ver, the authors distort and simplify the debate when they accuse W\u00e6ver and Buzan of using silencing techniques:<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThey block out the whole question of whether there is a problem with the original article, and turn it into a narrative about two younger women writing an article about two older men who couldn’t take criticism,\u00ab he says.<\/p>\n<p><strong>READ ALSO:<\/strong><em> <a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/ole-waever-wants-to-win-the-argument-on-his-critics-own-terms-thats-what-makes-it-really-interesting\/\">Ole W\u00e6ver wants to win the argument on his critics’ own terms. That\u2019s what makes it really interesting<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00bbAnyone can relate to this story. It’s easy to see who you have to side with. It’s effective because everyone forgets to think about whether the original article actually holds water.\u00ab<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It makes perfect sense that I don’t want to be a part of an editorial team in a journal that has exposed me to this.<\/p>\n<p class=\"quotee\">Ole W\u00e6ver. Professor, Department of Political Science<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>According to W\u00e6ver, many of the researchers who have signed the letter have probably never read a single sentence about securitisation. They simply want to criticise racism, the bullying of young researchers, and the \u00bbthin-skinned senior researchers,\u00ab who lead campaigns against critics, he says.<\/p>\n<p>If this was the case, Ole W\u00e6ver himself could have signed the letter. But this is not the case, according to him. According to W\u00e6ver, the petitions are based on the misconception that Howell and Richter-Montpetit’s article is a normal academic critique of a theory, when in fact it is an example of faulty science.<\/p>\n<p>W\u00e6ver criticises the article in such dismissive terms, because is not about critical race studies, quite the opposite, he says. The article which accuses his theory of being racist is of such poor quality that it is a parody of the field.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIt’s misguided to say this is silencing. Because this means that our criticism is directed at all race-critical research \u2013 as if any article that uses critical race studies can be withdrawn in the future. On the contrary, it is a question of this particular article not living up to the standards of the field. And in order to save that field and to insist that good and solid research can be carried out within it, we have to say that this article is not good enough. Even in our short answer, this is actually quite clear.\u00ab<\/p>\n<h3>The rats are missing<\/h3>\n<p>For the same reason, W\u00e6ver rejects the idea that his defence was a threat to freedom of research, as it states in the petition sent to Security Dialogue.<\/p>\n<p>He calls several of the points in the open letter \u00bbpretty far out.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p>As he has previously told the newspaper Weekendavisen, the email he sent to about four hundred colleagues was not part of a boycott campaign, as he thinks the petition claims. And he also defends his statement that he intends to leave the Security Dialogue editorial team:<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIt makes perfect sense that I don’t want to be a part of an editorial team in a journal that has exposed me to this. It is not only about the article, but also the refusal to cooperate on subsequent solutions.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p>He knows that it is unusual to demand the withdrawal of a peer-reviewed article in a subject where the line between right and wrong is often contested. But it’s an unusual situation, he says, and draws parallels to the case of the brain scientist Milena Penkowa at the University of Copenhagen. She had articles retracted and was stripped of her doctorate after she was found to have breached good scientific conduct and found out to have fabricated experiments in rats.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIt’s the same with this article. There are no rats here either. The data on which [Howell and Richter-Montpetit] base their analysis is just as flawed. Point for point, they claim to have found something in our texts that is not there.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p>The authors behind the open letter to the Security Dialogue criticise W\u00e6ver and Buzan for attacking the journal’s peer review process. W\u00e6ver himself, however, says he does not want to challenge the peers\u2019 selection and assessment.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This criticism is deeply incriminating because it accuses my entire work of being carried out in the service of racism.<\/p>\n<p class=\"quotee\">Ole W\u00e6ver, Professor, Department of Political Science<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Instead, he points out that the article should have been rooted out following post-publication rules that state that journals need established procedures to correct, revise or withdraw already published articles if serious errors have been found.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbIn the Penkowa and rats case, we should not have to expect that the peer reviewers had bought 700 rats themselves and done the same experiment. And the same applies here,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThe peer review is based on the data provided by the authors, but they ended up publishing an article that could not hold water. That is why there are rules for withdrawing an article, even though there is little precedent to do so in our own field.\u00ab<\/p>\n<h3>A long, determined defence<\/h3>\n<p>In the open letters, the authors highlight that Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan considered it necessary to write a 98-page defence, almost five times the length of Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit’s original article.<\/p>\n<p>The question is, would they have really need to use so many pages, if the criticism didn\u2019t have a grain of truth in it?<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI’ve never ever written such a long answer based on normal criticism. But this criticism is deeply incriminating because it accuses my entire work of being carried out in the service of racism. I cannot treat this like any other form of criticism. This is ridiculous. Of course I’ve invested myself in this in a completely different way,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbApart from this, in the long response we take critical race studies seriously and discuss what should be done in racism and security research, even if the critics claim that we do not.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p><em>Your language has been criticised too, partly because you use words like deep-fake. Have you regretted using words like that?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI know that if you reduce this to a kindergarten level, it’s about one side slinging insults at the other, who then slings back another one. But in my naivety, I didn’t think the research world was like that.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI don’t use deep-fake methodology as an insult, but as a very precise concept. The logic is that you can take a video recording of me giving a lecture, and break it down into little digital chunks, then splice it together with some other footage, and suddenly I appear in a porn video. Just like you can get Barack Obama to say he was born in Kenya.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbThat’s exactly what they’re doing. The social and cultural sciences have 350 years of history in discussing how to read and analyse texts. If we just do what the two researchers have done, then we destroy large parts of the humanities and social sciences.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p><em>But do you understand that your language has been seen as incendiary?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI understand that,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.<\/p>\n<p>\u00bbI hope there’s going to be a day when all this has calmed down, where we can dive down into the concepts and discuss them.\u00ab<\/p>\n<p><em>Melanie Richter-Montpetit and Alison Howell could not be reached for comment.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Translated by Mike Young<\/em><\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"ArticleEnd"},{"acf_fc_layout":"Newsletter","lang_select":"en","identifier":"Newsletter","headline":"Get the University Post English-language newsletter in your inbox","button_text":"Sign up here","class":""},{"acf_fc_layout":"OtherStories","headline":"","hand_picked_posts":true,"references":[{"reference":{"ID":106025,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2020-06-03 08:14:10","post_date_gmt":"2020-06-03 06:14:10","post_content":"<span class=\"dropcap\">R<\/span>esearch is a hard game to play. You slog away at your theories, studies or experiments. And then you put it all out there, so others can assess how well you thought things through.\r\n\r\nIt has to hurt if other researchers' criticism reveals that the thoughts do not really stand up to scutiny. But if the assessment was objective and the criteria were fair, you can take comfort in the fact that you may have contributed to everyone, including you, learning from the experience.\r\n\r\nIf things are done fairly.\r\n\r\nWe <a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/prominent-peace-researcher-accused-of-racism-ive-never-felt-so-bad-about-my-life-as-an-academic\/\">wrote a story about<\/a> what it has been like for the prominent peace researcher Ole W\u00e6ver to have his research dissected in a particular type of anti-racist academic laboratory. And it's a story that begs the question: How can you objectively criticise and judge the thought of others?\r\n\r\n<strong>READ ALSO:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/prominent-peace-researcher-accused-of-racism-ive-never-felt-so-bad-about-my-life-as-an-academic\/\">World-renowned Danish peace scientist accused of racism<\/a>\r\n\r\nTwo researchers, Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, from universities in the US and the UK respectively, have \u2013 in a scientific article in a well-known journal \u2013 conducted what they call \u00bban excavation\u00ab of Ole W\u00e6ver's thinking, and the outcome is a conclusion that looks a lot like moral judgment. W\u00e6ver's thinking, which should help expose the exercise of power, is in fact racist, the two researchers argue. And thereby ... evil.\r\n<h3>The giant strikes back<\/h3>\r\nNow the debate is raging. Ole W\u00e6ver has fought back, hard. He accuses his critics of using a deepfake methodology in their scrutiny of his theories. It sounds like something from an episode of the dystopian sci-fi series Black Mirror.\r\n\r\nHe says they've cherrypicked from the texts of W\u00e6ver and his coauthors, and spliced them together as they please, just like deepfake videos can say and look like anything.\r\n\r\nW\u00e6ver is respected in his field, a heavyweight from that part of the academic left that also fostered researchers like Howell and Richter-Montpetit. On Twitter, people write that W\u00e6ver, by taking the critique of his theory personally, and by lashing out at younger researchers shows signs of suffering from \u00bbwhite male fragility\u00ab. The concept does not sound too academic, but is, incredibly, used in the subject area; it is really just a case of bullying.\r\n\r\nOf course it's personal if your life's work is suddenly labelled racist. If you claim this, the arguments have to be incisive. But Howell and Richter-Montpetit's arguments are problematic. A dense web of wild accusations based on a highly selective reading.\r\n\r\nW\u00e6ver could have just dismissed the criticism as nonsensical, as many intellectuals on the right have done already. He could portray the criticism as just a tendency on the left to see racism where everyone else has not yet discovered it.\r\n\r\nBut he doesn't. W\u00e6ver is himself a declared anti-racist. He wants to win the argument on the critics\u2019 own terms. He takes their criticism seriously, recognises that structural racism is a real science-theoretical problem. It just doesn't, in this case, apply to his own theory. It's a laborious argument, and it makes him vulnerable.\r\n\r\nAnd it also makes the debate more interesting. Perhaps W\u00e6ver's showdown with the anti-racist inquisition could be a <em>wake-up<\/em> to the <em>woke<\/em> part of academia? It is from here that, in recent years, the most interesting contributions to the cultural development of universities, and society more broadly, have come from. The debate over the rights of minorities, sexism and racism in campus culture, and the overrepresentation of white men on syllabi, all stem from here. These are important debates, and the academic left's criticism of norms and culture are often both legitimate, well-founded and timely.\r\n\r\nThis is why the criticism has to be fair.\r\n\r\n<em>Translation by Mike Young<\/em>\n<!-- end of module 1 -->\n","post_title":"Ole W\u00e6ver wants to win the argument on his critics' own terms. That\u2019s what makes it really interesting","post_excerpt":"Ole W\u00e6ver is subject to an unfair accusation. But instead of ignoring his critics, he attempts to win the argument based on their own assumptions. And this helps to make an already principled debate on alleged Copenhagen School racism even more interesting.","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"ole-waever-wants-to-win-the-argument-on-his-critics-own-terms-thats-what-makes-it-really-interesting","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-06-10 09:41:36","post_modified_gmt":"2020-06-10 07:41:36","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/ole-waever-vil-have-ret-paa-sine-kritikeres-praemisser-og-det-er-vildt-interessant\/","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}},{"reference":{"ID":104584,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2020-05-15 16:30:44","post_date_gmt":"2020-05-15 14:30:44","post_content":"<span class=\"dropcap\">I<\/span>'ve been emailing Professor Ole W\u00e6ver for almost four months. Back and forth. Waiting for him to be ready to talk.\r\n\r\nAbout his securitization theory, and whether it is racist. Its racism is something that two researchers claim <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/0967010619862921\">in a scientific article in the journal <em>Security Dialogue<\/em><\/a> that has been viewed or downloaded more than two thousand times in six months.\r\n\r\nThe two researchers call it an 'excavation', and their claim is that the whole of W\u00e6ver's theory is designed to bolster white supremacy and racism.\r\n\r\nOle W\u00e6ver has, since August 2019, attempted to respond to the scathing criticism that puts his theory on a par with such unpalatable ideas as phrenology and, as some would say, research into oil extraction.\r\n\r\nIt is a process which he describes as \u00bbdeeply unpleasant,\u00ab marked by mistrust and lack of understanding from the journal, which has not wanted to allow Ole W\u00e6ver and his colleagues to defend themselves in a longer rejoinder.\r\n\r\n\u00bbPersonally, this has been a real low point,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\n\u00bbI've never felt so bad about my job, my career and my life as an academic. I've really never felt so alienated. What the hell am I doing here? Why have I spent my life on this?\u00ab\r\n<div class=\"factbox\">\r\n<p class=\"factbox-header feature-color\">Copenhagen School<\/p>\r\nThe Copenhagen School is a constructivist theory in the field of international politics.\r\n\r\nIt was developed in collaboration between Ole W\u00e6ver, the British professor Barry Buzan and the Dutch professor Jaap De Wilde over a number of years since the end of the 1980s.\r\n\r\nThe theory was given its name by the researcher Bill McSweeney, who criticized W\u00e6ver and his collaborators in a 1996 article.\r\n\r\nIn 1998, W\u00e6ver, Buzan and De Wilde's published a book <em>Security: A New Framework for Analysis<\/em>, which has more than 10,000 citations.\r\n\r\nOle W\u00e6ver is behind the Copenhagen School's most prominent concept, securitization.\r\n\r\nToday Ole W\u00e6ver has his own research centre, the Centre for Resolution of International Conflicts (CRIC), which explores how to resolve conflicts without weapons.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h1>\u00bbI've never seen an article that was so wide off the mark\u00ab<\/h1>\r\nIt's not unreasonable to call Ole W\u00e6ver a celebrity researcher. He is a professor at the Department of Political Science at The University of Copenhagen, and, like Niels Bohr in his day, has had a theory named after his university\u2019s city. It is called the Copenhagen School and it is on the curriculum worldwide.\r\n\r\nW\u00e6ver is the author of the concept of securitization, which describes how political actors can turn any subject into a matter of life or death, war or peace. Like when a government wants to make refugees a security issue and therefore assures voters that they need to introduce border controls, harsher penalties and other methods that previously were seen as inhumane or undemocratic. They securitize the issue. At present, securitization is taking place throughout most of the world as politicians respond to the spread of coronavirus.\r\n\r\nThe theory of the Copenhagen School is intended as a critical tool to cast light on the doings of those in power and to help make the world a more peaceful place.\r\n\r\nBut that's not how two researchers, Associate Professor Alison Howell of Rutgers University in the US and Lecturer Melanie Richter-Montpetit of the University of Sussex in the UK, see it. In their article, they argue that racism is so integral to W\u00e6ver's theory that it can't be fixed. That the theory is <em>anti-black<\/em>, perpetuates a white, violent regime, and is designed to bolster <em>white supremacy<\/em>.\r\n\r\nOle W\u00e6ver hadn't seen that one coming. He was on his way to Australia when the article appeared on Twitter. He was busy moving house and almost just retweeted it with the text 'sounds interesting', he says.\r\n\r\nIt was only much later, when he had landed in Sydney, that he read what the criticism was all about. And even though Ole W\u00e6ver is used to discussions, he was shocked, he says:\r\n\r\n\u00bbI was appalled by the aggressiveness of it: that the criticism was so bombastic and so far-reaching,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\n\u00bbAnd such poor work. I've never seen an article that was so wide off the mark. And I've seen a lot of strange things over the years. It took me weeks to read it because it was just so painful.\u00ab\n<!-- end of module 1 -->\n<h1>Scientific squabble<\/h1>\r\nIt gets a bit scholastic when you have to recapitulate the <em>beef <\/em>between researchers that was initiated by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. The two use jargon from the academic left wing like 'civilisationism', 'methodological whiteness' and 'anti-black thought'.\r\n\r\nSo it is these words that are at stake. And they're crucial if you want to try to understand why Ole W\u00e6ver is so frustrated. He sighs between his sentences. Pauses. Thinks about how he can formulate himself correctly. Emotions and academic professionalism all mixed up.\r\n\r\nThe two researchers, Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, find W\u00e6ver, or his work, guilty of three things that make his theory racist:\r\n\r\nThe first is <strong>civilizationism<\/strong>. In the opinion, te Copenhagen School is characterized by distinguishing between 'good' normal politics \u2013 which is supposedly typically found in the West \u2013 and 'bad' securitized politics \u2014 which is particularly prevalent in The Global South. W\u00e6ver thereby legitimizes colonization, Howell and Richter-Montpetit write.\r\n\r\nThe second accusation is <strong>methodological whiteness<\/strong> which, according to Howell and Richter-Montpetit, is prevalent in the Copenhagen School. The argument here is that the theory\u2019s method is useless for engaging with racial issues. This is partly due to its focus on speech acts, i.e. the idea that certain statements are actions with real consequences. Here, the theory, according to the criticism, is blind to anything but 'white' voices, and so it excuses and reinforces a white and racist status quo.\r\n\r\nFinally, W\u00e6ver's theory includes <strong>anti-black thought and racism<\/strong>, according to the criticism. It does so, because key texts in the Copenhagen School particularly refer to African examples of fragmented civil wars, and because the theory considers Africa as a singular entity where most of politics has been securitized. In this way, Africa is constructed as a threat to Europe; as a kind of \u00bbupdated \u2018White man's burden\u2019\u00ab, Howell and Richter-Montpetit write.\r\n<h1>Doctored quotes and scientific dishonesty<\/h1>\r\nOle W\u00e6ver disagrees. He is aware that you may find a few problematic quotes in a back catalogue that dates back to the mid-1980s. Sentences about Africa's so-called 'failed states', which he \u00bbmight not write that way today\u00ab.\r\n\r\n\u00bbWe've all been part of a pattern of talking about Africa in a problematic way. But it just has nothing to do with the theory as such,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\nBut many of the other charges are completely unwarranted and \u00bbare based on the premise that you ignore the largest part of what we've written,\u00ab he says. Especially since the theory was conceived as an attempt to criticize dangerous developments in Europe. The Copenhagen School has always criticized Europe:\r\n<blockquote>Dammit, we were involved in the politics, I was active in the peace movement in the 1980s. It was in this context that we got the ideas for the whole theory. It was to intervene in these political debates ...<\/blockquote>\r\n\u00bbDammit, we were involved in politics, I was active in the peace movement in the 1980s. It was in this context that we got the ideas for the whole theory. It was to intervene in these political debates and because we were concerned about developments in the North,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver. \u00bbIf something is integral to the key concepts, you will find it in the texts where we developed the theory.\u00ab\r\n\r\nAccording to him, his critics ignore the majority of his and his colleagues\u2019 analyses and highlight a particular positive image of Europe, as if this view represented their general image of Europe.\r\n<div class=\"factbox\">\r\n<p class=\"factbox-header feature-color\">The journal<\/p>\r\n<strong>Security Dialogue<\/strong> is one of the largest scientific journals on research in international politics and security.\r\n\r\nIt is also the journal that has published the most articles about the Copenhagen School and securitization theory.\r\n\r\nAlison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit's article <em>Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and anti-black thought in the Copenhagen School<\/em> is the most read article on the journals website for the past six months.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nHe calls the criticism \u00bbintellectually lazy\u00ab and the analysis of his theory superficial. He says that Howell and Richter-Montpetit misquote him in key sections of their article \u2013 to substantiate a claim for which they could not find evidence:\r\n\r\n\u00bbThen we're out beyond the realm of academic debate. Then, in my opinion, we are talking about scientific misconduct.\u00ab\r\n\r\nLike where the two researchers want to link Ole W\u00e6ver to the classical philosopher Thomas Hobbes, whose theory of a 'social contract' for society is considered problematic and racist in some academic circles. The Jamaican researcher Charles Mills has, in particular, done a \u00bbsolid analysis\u00ab of why the 'social contract' can be considered racist, according to Ole W\u00e6ver.\r\n\r\nAnd Howell and Richter-Montpetit have tried to copy this analysis, by using quotes that are not from Ole W\u00e6ver at all, but from another researcher, cited by W\u00e6ver. The authors have attributed the quotes to him because \u00bbwithout this, they have nothing,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.\r\n\r\nSecurity Dialogue has corrected a number of citation errors which Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan have pointed out.\r\n\r\nThe University Post has presented the criticism by Ole W\u00e6ver to Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. They will not comment, but point instead to an upcoming article in Security Dialogue where they respond to the criticism.\r\n<h1>\u00bbDamn, it's really tough to be accused of racism\u00ab<\/h1>\r\nSo far, Ole W\u00e6ver has not responded to the criticism in public. But he and another member of the Copenhagen School, Professor Barry Buzan, have for months been working on having a rejoinder published in Security Dialogue. Just like Lene Hansen, Professor at the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen, who is also under scrutiny by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit in the article. <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/0967010620907198\">Professor Hansen's rejoinder was published in March 2020<\/a>.\r\n\r\nSecurity Dialogue has said that they will not print responses that are longer than the 4,000 words that are usually assigned to them in the journal, according to W\u00e6ver. Many publications uphold the principle that people who are the target of serious accusations should be given the opportunity for a reply that is published together with the criticism. But neither Ole W\u00e6ver nor Lene Hansen have received such an offer.\r\n\r\nMark B. Salter, the Editor of Security Dialogue, who has been presented with the criticism by W\u00e6ver, writes in an email that it is not normal in academic publishing to invite comment or rejoinders to regular research articles.\r\n\r\nHe also writes that W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan were invited to submit an 8-10,000 word article, but that they refused. Their reason, which is stated in the rejoinder they eventually did submit, is that the longer article would have to conform to a standard scientific format, i.e. contain new knowledge, include a literary review and so forth, whereas they wanted to respond to an accusation.\r\n\r\nThe difficulties in working out how the rejoinder might be given meant that the racism claim was left there, unrefuted, for almost nine months, seven if you count the Lene Hansen piece from March.\r\n\r\n\u00bbIt was quite clear that the editorial board of Security Dialogue would not acknowledge that anything unusual had happened at all. Their whole attitude was: 'This is just a professional debate.' And we said: 'Yes but, we've been accused of being racist. This sets off a whole register of rights and procedures. We must have a particular right to respond, because this is potentially defamatory.\u2019\u00ab\r\n\r\nInstead, they were accused of being presumptuous and wanting special treatment, according to Ole W\u00e6ver:\r\n\r\n\u00bbOn a human level, I felt that there was no recognition of why we were hurt by this at all. It was just us acting strange by reacting to it,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\nMark Salter from Security Dialogue writes that for reasons of confidentiality, he will neither comment on the disagreements with W\u00e6ver and Buzan nor characterize their request for a rejoinder.\r\n<blockquote>What the hell is this world if people are like this?\r\n<p class=\"quotee\">Ole W\u00e6ver<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nIt's as if the roles have been reversed. Ole W\u00e6ver is usually the peace researcher you call up when you want a well-known, critical researcher to say something about world peace. Now he's the one who is taking the flak; he's the one who is being gossiped about: <em>Is he a racist? Maybe, I don't know.<\/em> He certainly feels that way: \u00bbDamn, it's really incriminating to be accused of racism. It is not fun to be marked a racist either personally or professionally. But the journal just rejected this out of hand.\u00ab\r\n\r\n\u00bbThe people who read the journal are also the people with whom I associate the most. They're the ones that I'd hang out with at a conference. That's why it's been so tough personally. What the hell is this world, I'm part of, if people are like this?\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\nSecurity Dialogue rejects the idea that Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan are being personally accused of being racists.\r\n\r\n<strong>READ ALSO:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/ole-waever-wants-to-win-the-argument-on-his-critics-own-terms-thats-what-makes-it-really-interesting\/\">Ole W\u00e6ver wants to win the argument on his critics' own terms. That\u2019s what makes it really interesting<\/a>\r\n\r\n\u00bbWe hold that Howell and Richter-Montpetit\u2019s article does not make a claim about the character, attitudes, or opinions of individuals. And we take [their] argument at face value when they write \u201cThe argument presented here is not a personal indictment of any particular author.\u201d As I read it, their article is a critique of the foundations of securitization theory,\u00ab writes Mark B. Salter.\r\n\r\nBut this is not a valid argument, according to Ole W\u00e6ver:\r\n\r\n\u00bbThey're basically trying to have it both ways. To say it, and not to say it \u2013 to have a shock effect and thereby get the clicks because everyone knows who it is they're attacking with this fierce rhetoric, while they are hiding behind this one tiny disclaimer,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\nAfter several months of correspondence, <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/0967010620916153\">the journal agreed to publish a shorter response<\/a>. Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan have chosen to publish a longer,<a href=\"https:\/\/cric.ku.dk\/Publications\/RacismReply\/\"> in-depth response on a University of Copenhagen website<\/a>.\r\n\r\nIn both the short and long responses, Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan hit back hard at Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, and write, for example:\r\n\r\n\u00bbH&RM could perhaps best be used as a teaching tool for how not to make an academic argument. This kind of <em>deepfake<\/em> methodology should have no place in academic debates, and should certainly not be published in a reputable journal.\u00ab\r\n\r\nWith <em>deepfake<\/em>, a word describing computer-generated forgeries of real people's words and appearance, Ole W\u00e6ver and Barry Buzan believe that Howell and Richter-Montpetit have built up their argument from small pieces of theory, which they then put together in a way that makes them 'speak', as if they were detached from the original texts.\r\n\r\nSecurity Dialogue's editor, Mark B. Salter, does not answer The University Post's question about how he judges the academic merits of Howell and Richter-Montpetit's article, but he writes that the article (in an anonymous form) went through an academic peer review to assure its quality.\r\n<h1>A larger wave<\/h1>\r\nAlison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit are part of a larger theoretical movement that aims to 'decolonize' scientific theories and make the academic community more aware of the racism, sexism, colonialism, ableism, etc., which, according to the movement, is all-pervasive.\r\n\r\nAnd it's not just the Copenhagen School that is denounced by the two researchers. In fact, according to a <a href=\"https:\/\/sasn.rutgers.edu\/about-us\/faculty-staff\/alison-howell\">post on Alison Howell's website,<\/a> they are in the process of writing a book called 'Race and Security Studies', where they attempt to criticize security theories in a more general sense.\r\n\r\nThis also applies to so-called Foucauldian security theory, which, according to Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, repeats the philosopher Michel Foucault's <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/ips\/article-abstract\/13\/1\/2\/5265732?redirectedFrom=fulltext\">\u00bbwhitewashing of raciality and coloniality of modern power and violence.\u00ab<\/a>\r\n\r\nThis is almost patricide. The thoughts of Foucault is the theoretical basis of some of the most recognized feminist and postcolonial theories of the modern era, including those of Judith Butler. (Even though Butler has criticized Foucault too).\r\n\r\nAccording to Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, racism and 'whiteness' are so integral to some theories such as the Copenhagen School, that you cannot separate it from its positive aspects (if there are any).\r\n\r\nThey write without any reservations: Foucault has whitewashed the racial issue. W\u00e6ver's theory is racist. End of discussion.\r\n\r\nBut whether you agree with the criticism of W\u00e6ver or not, the situation raises some questions. Can theories even be racist? What type of reading does it take to demonstrate this? And what does it mean if a theory is branded as racist, for the researchers themselves and for the freedom of research in general?\r\n<h1>Team Woke<\/h1>\r\nOle W\u00e6ver is, to start off, on the \u2018woke\u2019 team and conscious of social issues. He says that the criticism of racism is important. He wouldn't mind if the Copenhagen School was trashed in a connection with a wider critique of the social sciences, he says. Because we need criticism. But if you're going to target one particular theory and denounce it as racist, you need something more and substantiated:\r\n\r\n\u00bbIt's such a strong claim that you really have to all your paperwork in order. And for me there is this contrast between something so hard, far-reaching, personal and destructive \u2014 and this exceptionally thin basis to the claim. In fact it\u2019s absurd.\u00ab\r\n\r\nHe says that Howell and Richter-Montpetit misunderstand a core concept, normal politics, in his theory, and then make a misleading presentation of the theory's analyses. All to conclude on something that they haven't studied, namely how the key concepts of the theory are actually shaped, he says.\r\n\r\nBut there are plenty of anti-racists who have done really good analyses of how social science is racist, says Ole W\u00e6ver.\r\n\r\n\u00bbWe have all contributed to institutions that, taken together, maintain some power structures in this society. And so we all help to reproduce some racist structures,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\n\u00bbBut if we are going to avoid mud-slinging and mutual destruction, we need to do it in a much more systematic way,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\nOle W\u00e6ver says he could also 'call the two researchers out' for being \u00bbAmerican cultural imperialists\u00ab because they, according to him, simply mechanically transpose American college politics. But would it matter?\r\n\r\nHe says:\r\n\r\n\u00bbThen you could escalate your choice of words about each other. This is also increasingly happening between feminists and postcolonialists, who are individually accusing each other of being different things,\u00ab he says. And sighs: \u00bbIt's going to be unbearable for us to live in this world.\u00ab\r\n\r\n<em>Why?<\/em>\r\n\r\n\u00bbIt sickens me to read an article about me being a racist, which I also know will be read by people outside my own profession, and who don't have the opportunity to understand it. So if I'm looking for funding, or someone is nominating me for a prize somewhere, or someone wants to invite me to something, people will say: No, that guy, there's something about him being a racist.\u00ab\r\n\r\nHe calls it a \u00bbcatch-22 situation on at least three levels,\u00ab which makes it difficult for him to respond without being pigeonholed with the wrong types.\r\n\r\nOn the one hand, parts of the anti-racist community consider themselves, by definition, the victims, he says. Here, even good arguments are oppressive:\r\n\r\n\u00bbThey feel that they are being marginalized by mainstream researchers. In other words, whatever we do will be portrayed by them as an attempt to silence them. It's catch-22 in the way that if I respond at all, it's as if I'm trying to fight what they're doing. Even if the response is to demonstrate that the criticism breaks with fundamental principles of method, logic and reading,\u00ab says Ole W\u00e6ver.\r\n\r\nIn addition, he finds that there is widespread and consistent outrage on social media if people complain over unfair racism claims. Whining from the victims of racism criticism is seen as pathetic compared to what the 'real' victims of racism have to go through, he says.\r\n\r\nFinally, it is difficult to respond to the criticism of Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit without it being used to undermine the important issues that they also highlight. You can be turned into a straw man for \u00bbpolitical correctness\u00ab and \u00bbidentity culture\u00ab.\r\n\r\n\u00bbI know very well who would like to use what I say. There are loads of right wingers who will jump on this and use it to say: Look how crazy they all are, these anti-racists. I have absolutely no desire to support or to become a spokesperson for them,\u00ab he says.\r\n\r\n\u00bbAt the end of the day, the worst thing about that article is that it probably weakens the fight against racism. Howell and Richter-Montpetit dilute the concept at a time when real racism is gaining ground. What should we call it, if the word just signifies virtually all of the social sciences? And at the same time, the article makes a mockery of critical research. I've heard from colleagues who sincerely thought this was a hoax, a parody that someone had tricked the journal into accepting in order to de-legitimize anti-racism. I wish it was.\u00ab\r\n\r\n<em>Translated by Mike Young<\/em>\n<!-- end of module 2 -->\n","post_title":"Peace researcher Ole W\u00e6ver accused of racism: \u00bbI've never felt so bad about my life as an academic\u00ab","post_excerpt":"Professor Ole W\u00e6ver's theory of securitization has been accused of being so racist that it should never be applied again. But the criticism is bad science, W\u00e6ver responds. He says he is caught in a catch-22 situation where it is hard to defend himself.","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"prominent-peace-researcher-accused-of-racism-ive-never-felt-so-bad-about-my-life-as-an-academic","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2022-03-23 10:36:01","post_modified_gmt":"2022-03-23 09:36:01","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/?p=104584","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}}],"category":false,"theme":false,"number_of_posts":"4","style":"default"}],"article_updated":""},"taxonomyData":{"category":[{"term_id":46,"name":"Science","slug":"science","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":46,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":831,"filter":"raw"}],"post_tag":[{"term_id":3491,"name":"Alison Howell","slug":"alison-howell-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3491,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3614,"name":"Copenhagen school","slug":"copenhagen-school","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3614,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3608,"name":"Cynthia Enloe","slug":"cynthia-enloe-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3608,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3497,"name":"Melanie Richter-Montpetit","slug":"melanie-richter-montpetit-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3497,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3498,"name":"Ole W\u00e6ver","slug":"ole-waever-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3498,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":5,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3610,"name":"Paul Amar","slug":"paul-amar-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3610,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3611,"name":"race","slug":"race-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3611,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3612,"name":"Sandra Whitworth","slug":"sandra-whitworth-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3612,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3613,"name":"securitisation","slug":"securitisation","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3613,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":3500,"name":"Security Dialogue","slug":"security-dialogue-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3500,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":3,"filter":"raw"}],"post_format":[],"expression":[{"term_id":15,"name":"News Article","slug":"news_article","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":15,"taxonomy":"expression","description":"","parent":0,"count":11487,"filter":"raw"}],"translation_priority":[]},"featured_media_url":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ole_waever_k6a3085-1280x853.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106284"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106284\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":106374,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106284\/revisions\/106374"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/106014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uniavisen.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}