Prestige by Proxy: Associated Cognitive Dissonance

I posted an essay Prestige by Proxy in Science: The NASA - GT - MIT Pipeline. The reactions have been mixed, although the majority of the comments are highly critical of my standing and motivation for posting it. It’s classic DARVO tactics. There have been a lot of comments supporting nepotism as some sort of evolutionary advantage that supports cooperation and increased trust. Other comments are more nihilistic, acknowledging its harm, but just saying that nothing can be done.

The overwhelming majority of comments though are targeted against me personally. I think that speaks to the cognitive dissonance in academia. Most people know that nepotism wrong. However, when I talk about it in specificity, tribalism takes over because the community sees it as an attack on one of their own.

I’ve been told by many people that you’re allowed to talk about nepotism but you’re not allowed to talk about the people involved. And in all honesty, that makes absolutely no sense. Nepotism in academia is always something that you hear about from a friend that knew a friend but never in detail.

The fact is academia is not a true meritocracy. Its just as corrupt as other systems. And when anyone tries to expose the reality of the system, the only logical response is to be defensive because there’s no incentive to change the system when you’re already part of it.

I hope by talking about nepotism in academia openly and factually we can help create a better discussion to promote a higher degree of meritocracy. And while nepotism might be an evolutionary trait, so is accountability, introspection and progress.