Woke intolerance has penetrated peak scientific associations in psychology. There is a rapidly developing scandal around the recent dismissal of Klaus Fiedler, the Chief Editor of the prestigious journal Perspectives on Psychological Inquiry by the executive of the Association of Psychological Science.

Fiedler was accused of racism and was summarily removed from his editorship by the association. This appears to have occurred without any due process, proper investigation, or independent assessment of the charges against him. Many distinguished psychologists learnt of this injustice with a sense of outrage, resulting in a spate of resignations and protests.

Fiedler has been an eminent professor at the University of Heidelberg with an outstanding research record over four decades. He is also a highly experienced editor who served the discipline with great distinction and dedication on the boards of several leading journals.

He is widely recognised in the field as not only not a racist, but one of the most fair-minded and decent scientists with an impressive track record of supporting and mentoring young scientists from every background.

Indeed, on his appointment, APS praised Fiedler for bringing a broad body of research and knowledge as well as significant editorial experience to its flagship journal, as the first chief editor appointed from outside North America.

The unsubstantiated accusation of racism against Fiedler was brought by Steven Othello Roberts, a self-identified race scholar who objected to Fiedler’s handling of critical reactions to his controversial paper on Racial Inequality in Psychological Research.

Commentators of Roberts’ work argued that it was ideological and not scientific (Hommel), that he introduced identity politics into the discipline (Stanovich), that racial representativeness is not relevant to establishing universal psychological principles (Stroebe), and that Roberts’s emphasis on racial diversity is selective and unscientific (Jussim).

Critical comments on scientific papers are nothing unusual. What Roberts objected to, and what he implied was evidence of racism, was that the reviewers happened to be ‘all senior White men’, apparently confirming his belief that:

‘…systemic racism exists in science. There is a racialised power structure that marginalises research by (and about) people of colour.’

One can always question the fairness of editorial choices, but as far as one can see, there is no evidence of racism in anything Fiedler has done. Indeed, it could be argued that the only race-based commentary on display here is by Roberts, as it was he who raised the racial status of the reviewers as problematic and claimed that their critical remarks were ‘unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist’. The details of this appalling case have been impressively documented in the recent Editorial by the online magazine Quillette.

Accusing Fiedler of racism based on his choice of reviewers and his handling of a manuscript has no substance as far as one can see. Reviewers should always be chosen based on their expertise and merit, and not their racial or identity status.

As a scientist, it was Fiedler’s duty to disregard ideology and evaluate papers based only on their scientific merit and to select reviewers solely based on their expertise. This he has done. The race or identity of an author or reviewer can play no role in such decisions. Roberts’ accusation that the reviewers’ race may be a factor in their critical reactions could easily be considered a racist position.

The far more troubling issue is how leading professional associations in a scientific field have now been corrupted by Woke ideology to a degree where unsupportable and unexamined accusations of racism can result in the immediate dismissal of an outstanding editor, and the gratuitous slandering of the good name of a serious and decent scientist.

Fiedler’s case illustrates a growing trend among scientific associations of adopting activist policies and ideological control in violation of the most basic principles of fairness and scientific values.

Various other psychological associations now demand that scientific papers must be prefaced by statements about how they advance diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. Once prestigious journals, like Nature Human Behaviour, now reserves the right to refuse articles it deems to be socially problematic, irrespective of their truth or scientific merit.

The procedures adopted by APS amount to a shameful denial of procedural and natural justice. Interestingly, European associations appear more resistant to Woke ideology. The German Psychological Association rebuked its American counterpart, stating that ‘it is not our understanding of procedural justice to condemn a person without giving him or her an adequate hearing’.

Many distinguished scientists also expressed their support of Fiedler. Joachim Krueger, a senior researcher, and editorial board member resigned and wrote:

‘APS has placed ideological mandates before science and has thereby begun to throttle it. I do not know how you might recover from this … In time, someone will write the story of these recent events, and the APS leadership is not likely to star in a heroic role.’

Those like me who lived in totalitarian societies will recognise that such a summary condemnation and punishment of individuals accused of ideological trespasses without due process is the hallmark of totalitarian institutions. They should not be tolerated in our professional associations.

Hard-working and decent scientists like Fiedler should not be condemned on the say-so of a disgruntled author who dislikes the way his manuscript has been handled. Such scurrilous accusations of racism should not remain unchallenged, and the scientific community cannot remain silent without compromising the foundational values that inform our enterprise.

It is critically important that scientists should protest against such shameful injustice. Writing to the APS executive (Contact Us – Association for Psychological Science – APS), resigning from this association, and demanding fairness and due process for Fiedler are available options. The injustice perpetrated by APS against one of our most decent and fair-minded colleagues should not remain unchallenged. If we let this pass, we can no longer pretend that our professional associations continue to represent the noble traditions of scientific inquiry.

Joseph P Forgas, AM, DPhil, Dsc (Oxford), FRSNSW, FASSA. Scientia Professor, Psychology UNSW Sydney

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in