Higher Ed’s New Human-Subjects Problem

Intellectual rot within universities has become increasingly obvious. It stems from the widespread adoption of critical, feminist, and queer theories in academic work. The result has been a constant stream of illogical, unscientific, and otherwise incoherent academic papers. Organizations such as the Martin Center, Do No Harm, the National Association of Scholars, The College Fix, and Reality’s Last Stand have been at the forefront of exposing all of this.

I think there is more to expose, however, not just in terms of the total volume of this wrongheaded work but also in terms of its misdirected moral compass. Whereas critiques of misguided scholarship often emphasize that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money and leads to ill-conceived public policies and healthcare practices, I also believe that human-participant research informed by “critical” epistemology is prone to violating core principles of ethical research. Moreover, I believe that such work often does not meet the definition of research. Therefore, in many instances, human-participant research informed by critical theory should not be approved by university institutional review boards (IRBs).

Human-participant research informed by “critical” epistemology is prone to violating core principles of ethical research. White Ignorance

In 2025, activist academics at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University published a paper in Child Development titled “Learning (Not) to Know: Examining How White Ignorance Manifests and Functions in White Adolescents’ Racial Identity Narratives.”

The “study,” which was “approved by the university research board,” involved interviews with 69 white adolescents. Its purpose was to examine how “white adolescents demonstrate and engage with (via accommodation and resistance) white ignorance in their racial identity narratives.”

Such work often does not meet the definition of research. In their interviews, the adolescents were asked questions such as: What are some of the good things about being white? What are some of the things that are hard about being white? Can you think of a time when you were treated differently because of your race? Do you ever feel like people expect you to act a certain way or do certain things just because you are white?

As seen in the paper, the adolescents did not communicate racist beliefs. For example, one adolescent responded, “I don’t see anybody else as different[,] like[,] at all. Like[,] I don’t really care what your skin, what your race is[,] like[,] you’re still the same person on the inside even if you look different on the outside.”

Most academics with common sense and decency would view such responses as encouraging. Yet the activist academics claimed that the adolescents’ responses illustrated “white ignorance,” which was defined as “an epistemic practice rooted in histories of racial domination and violence, which continually serves to disregard and dehumanize people of color by holding white supremacy in place.”

The activist academics further said that their findings revealed how “white ignorance as a macrosystemic cultural practice becomes embedded in, and strengthened through, the micro-level racial identities of white adolescents” and how “white children’s racial development is intertwined with white ignorance.”

Crucially, these activist academics had no intention of reaching a conclusion other than one that confirmed their beliefs in “white supremacy,” “white privilege,” and “white ignorance.” We know this because they told us! “Importantly, the aim of the present analysis was not to test or ‘prove’ whether white ignorance exists; rather our analysis starts from the macrosystem of white supremacy and asks how and in what ways white ignorance shows up in white adolescents’ developing racial identities.”

Dummy Dads

In the same year, an activist academic at York University in Canada published a paper in Men and Masculinities titled “When Men Seek Support and Comradery: Fathers’ Rights Groups and the Complexities of Manhood.” This activist academic used social-media advertisements to recruit 14 men from fathers’ groups to participate in an interview “study,” which was approved by the IRB at Simon Fraser University, the academic’s previous institution. In the interviews, the fathers answered questions about their experiences in fathers’ groups.

As seen in the paper, the fathers provided heartfelt answers. Their responses expressed appreciation for being able to connect with other fathers and receive emotional support from them. Some of the fathers also mentioned how ideas such as patriarchy and “male privilege” do not correspond with their daily experiences, with one father saying that many men feel “completely powerless.”

Sadly for the fathers, just as for the white adolescents, they never stood a chance at having their opinions treated justly by the activist author. The “study” was a setup job, and the activist academic admitted this when he said that he “applied a feminist epistemological lens to analyze and make meaning of these data.” By this, the author meant that he had planned to cram the fathers’ responses into pre-existing feminist categories. This is why the activist academic showed a lack of empathy for the fathers when interpreting their responses. The author concluded that such fathers “perpetuate a form of backlash against women and feminist movements in which they attempt to position men as socially oppressed” and that their “rhetoric blames women for men’s unpleasant experiences, and it fosters a belief in the righteousness of hegemonic masculinity and men’s entitlement to power and control.” In other words, fathers are wrong and have no legitimate grievances or concerns, while feminist academics are always correct.

Rigging occurs when activist academics design questionnaires that have false assumptions built into their queries. Survey Research, Too

Importantly, the rigging of human research by activist academics goes beyond interview studies. It extends to survey research, too. This rigging occurs when activist academics design questionnaires that have false assumptions built into their queries. Answers to these questions then provide biased data that support the latest trends in critical theory. Some examples of rigged questionnaires in the sex/gender-studies area include the Male Privilege Awareness Scale, the Toxic Masculinity Scale, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and the Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale. All these scales are problematic, because their questions incorrectly assume that all men are inherently privileged and dominant and that men never experience legitimate disadvantage, hardship, or injustice. Making matters worse is that newly developed scales of this type often get “validated” via comparison to older and similarly biased scales. This creates a system of circular validation of misguided ideas, compounding the depth of the intellectual rot while providing a sheen of academic prestige under the guise of “validity.”

Human research that is informed by critical theory often is not falsifiable. Falsifiability and Research Ethics

Karl Popper articulated that, for work to be considered science, it must be falsifiable. By this, Popper meant that a theory is scientific if, in principle, it can be shown to be false by evidence. Work that does not meet this fundamental criterion is merely pseudoscience.

As evident from the rigged academic work cited above, human research that is informed by critical theory often is not falsifiable. It is pseudoscience, and activist academics indirectly admit this when they reveal their critical “lenses” in their papers. These lenses prevent activist academics from considering alternative interpretations of their data. In the study of white adolescents, the activist academics knew from the start that they would portray the white adolescents negatively. If the adolescents did not make racist remarks, then the activist academics would conclude that the adolescents had exhibited “white ignorance.” If the adolescents did make racist comments, then the activist academics would say that the adolescents showed direct evidence of racism. In other words: Heads, I win; tails, you lose!

Moreover, because such work is not genuine research, there is no reason to conduct it in the first place. Thus, these “studies” disrespectfully waste participants’ time and expose participants to an unnecessarily increased risk of harm.

Also, participants probably do not understand how their responses are going to be used by activist academics. Consent forms likely do not say things such as “No matter what you tell us, we are going to conclude that you suffer from white ignorance” or “Your responses, no matter what they are, will be used to promote a feminist agenda that says that men are inherently privileged and never victims.” Presumably, most consenting individuals believe that their data will undergo rigorous, objective, and fair analysis. But this is not how activist academics treat data, and their trickery is made worse by the fact that the majority of Americans still hold a high level of trust in scientists, and trust in researchers is a factor that individuals weigh before deciding to participate in studies.

The Declaration of Helsinki states that research involving human participants is “subject to ethical standards to promote and ensure respect for all participants and protect their health and rights.” The Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s policy statement on human research proposes three pillars of ethical research: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. Similarly, the Belmont Report, which informs research ethics in the United States, lists respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as foundations of ethical research. Finally, Australian guidelines state that an individual’s decision to participate in research should be based on “sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.”

Human-participant “research” informed by critical theory often fails to meet these criteria. Misrepresenting participants’ views and accusing participants of being “ignorant” or “privileged” based on their race or sex does not reflect respect or the just treatment of participants. Moreover, providing participants with incomplete information about the biased surveys they are about to complete or the prejudicial way their responses will be interpreted does not constitute participants being adequately informed about what they are signing up for.

These ethical violations alone are grounds for university IRBs to not approve some human research. These ethical violations alone are grounds for university IRBs to not approve some human research informed by critical theory (or other unfalsifiable doctrines). Nevertheless, a further step in ensuring that human participants are not exposed to pseudoscience is for national governing bodies and IRBs to adopt the concept of falsifiability in their definitions of research. Research protocols submitted to IRBs might then require academics to explain what evidence would falsify their hypotheses. If academics provide insufficient responses, then their work should not be categorized as human research, and if their work is not human research then it falls outside of the purview of the IRB. This loss of access to IRBs would incidentally help choke off some of the stream of crazy academic papers informed by non-falsifiable premises, because most academic journals require evidence of IRB approval to publish work involving human participants. Activist academics who do not want to adopt a genuine and fair approach to understanding human nature can still write about their unfalsifiable theories in books and opinion papers. However, until they change their ways, they should not be entitled to IRB approval and the linked processes that signal research integrity and credibility.

James L. Nuzzo, PhD, is an exercise scientist and men’s-health researcher. He has published over 80 research articles in peer-reviewed journals and writes regularly about exercise, men’s health, and academia at The Nuzzo Letter.