[_vertigo]

Let's say the guy did take her out of context and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. Why is the appropriate response to someone taking you out of context opening an official inquiry into his behavior? Miscommunication happens all of the time, why are they forming an investigative panel?

>Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas?

Well, wouldn't the existence of the panel lend some weight to their claims they are being cancelled? I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? He published a letter, and it was a pretty respectful letter at that. Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context?

[spats1990]

> and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse.

I was talking about the columnist from the Spectator, not the scientist.

> I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action?

The university didn't take action (apart from the email from the VC, the full content of which we don't have to hand). It was the Royal Society of New Zealand that set up the panel. Totally different. I think your question here is answered by the text I quoted in my earlier post:

"To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics."

edit: >Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context? I see what you are getting at, but I think the issue is more that the letter publicly misrepresented something in a way that was in itself not scientific.

I'll have to think about it, but I'm leaning toward thinking the Spectator columnist, at least, is badly misrepresenting what has happened.

Beyond that I actually don't really have strong feelings about this yet because it's honestly the first I've heard of it, even though I live in NZ.

[_vertigo]

not sure what the difference is, royal society vs not. According to news reports they face expulsion from the royal society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/royal-societ...

How is that not being cancelled?

[spats1990]

See my edits in the comment above.

I will further note that understanding the royal society vs university distinction here is pretty important, but it seems that you've already made up your mind.

I won't be responding again here, thanks.

[_vertigo]

That doesn’t seem fair, I’ve not made up my mind. I just want to understand why you think people forming a panel to remove you from the royal society of New Zealand because you published a polite letter does not constitute cancelling.

Perhaps there’s something I’m missing?