Latest news with #TheCollegeFix
Time of India
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
UPenn climate professor under fire after invoking ‘second amendment territory' over Trump education ruling
University of Pennsylvania climate professor Michael Mann and US President Donald Trump. (Getty Images) A University of Pennsylvania climate professor and senior administrator has sparked controversy after suggesting the country is in "second amendment territory" if President Donald Trump does not comply with a federal court ruling blocking his efforts to dismantle the Education Department. Michael Mann made the remarks on social media, prompting backlash and widespread criticism from various commentators and political observers. The comment came after a federal judge issued an injunction that halted Trump's plan to close the Education Department and reinstate over 1,300 employees who were facing mass termination. Trump had issued an executive order in March directing the department to be shut down, arguing that states are better suited to handle its core functions, as reported by The College Fix and Free Beacon. Second amendment territory comment triggers backlash Mann wrote on Bluesky, "If Trump doesn't comply, we're in second amendment territory," a statement that many took as a call for armed resistance. The post was deleted shortly afterward amid the backlash. However, Mann doubled down in a follow-up post, explaining that the second amendment "refers to the right of the people to rise up and defend democracy," and accused critics of being "very dishonest" to interpret his words as a threat against Trump, according to The College Fix. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Despite Mann's clarification, social media accounts such as Libs of TikTok tagged the FBI, accusing him of calling to "kill Trump and Trump officials," as mentioned by Headline USA. Journalist Paul D. Thacker also commented that Mann "appears to be calling for armed resistance," highlighting the intensity of reactions on social media platforms. Legal troubles and university tensions Mann's controversial remarks come amid a series of legal and institutional challenges he has faced. In 2025, a Washington, D.C., court ordered Mann to pay over $1 million to cover litigation costs after he was sanctioned for providing misleading information during a defamation suit against conservative bloggers and commentators, as reported by Headline USA and Free Beacon. The climate scientist has also found himself at the center of tensions between academia and the Trump administration. The administration recently cut billions of dollars in federal funding to universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, due to alleged failures in handling anti-Semitism on campuses, pro-Hamas attitudes, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. In April 2025, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights froze $175 million in funding for UPenn over its decision to allow a biological male to compete on the women's swim team, which the office said violated equal opportunities for women. The university president condemned the funding freeze, warning it "will be felt by society," according to the Free Beacon. Mann's political and social media presence Mann has been outspoken on several controversial issues beyond climate science. He recently criticized the US Department of Education's "End DEI" reporting portal, likening it to a program he said "Hitler had," as reported by The College Fix. He has also warned about climate change effects and advocated for getting off fossil fuels to prevent future crises. The professor's social media activity and statements have drawn parallels to other public figures who faced scrutiny for incendiary remarks. For example, Stanford fellow Scott Atlas called for people to "rise up" during Covid-19 restrictions, which student newspapers interpreted as incitement to violence, noted in the original articles. University of Pennsylvania and federal response UPenn has not publicly responded to requests for comment on Mann's statements, while spokespeople for the FBI and DOJ have been silent or unresponsive as of this writing, according to reports from Headline USA and Free Beacon. Mann's position as the inaugural vice provost for climate science, policy, and action, appointed in late 2024, places him in a prominent role at the university, intensifying attention on his remarks. The controversy underscores growing political polarization surrounding academic figures and their role in public discourse, especially as it relates to high-stakes political conflicts involving the Trump administration. Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.
Gulf Insider
21-02-2025
- Health
- Gulf Insider
500+ COVID Studies Retracted for Unreliable Data
Retractions are driven by pressure to produce studies quickly, watchdog co-founder says More than 500 studies on COVID-19 have been withdrawn due to 'bias,' 'unreliable' information, or unspecified reasons, a blog that tracks retracted documents, found. Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky told The College Fix via phone interview one reason for the high number of retractions is the academic system's incentive structure which pressures researchers to rapidly produce studies and get them peer reviewed as quickly as possible. 'Why do they feel the need to rush papers through? Well, it's because that's how they get or keep their jobs, that's how they get grants, everything is based on that,' he said. 'When you know that your whole career depends on publishing papers in particular journals, you're going to do what you have to do to publish those papers. Most of the time that means you work hard, you hire the smart grad students and postdocs,' he said. Oransky also said researchers may feel 'too desperate' or that 'incentives are so stark' that there's no 'humanly possible way' to do it. 'So you start engaging in misconduct,' he said. The articles in the list pertain to risk factors related to COVID-19 vaccines and various alternative treatments for the disease. 'It's really a range of everything from essays to big clinical trials,' he said. Oransky pointed The Fix to one of his research letters examining the differences between retractions of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related research papers. The results showed that papers on COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of being retracted or withdrawn within the first six months of publication and that they were more likely removed 'without detailed explanation or for non-misconduct-related concerns.' He said retracting papers is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can correct information that was potentially wrong or misleading. Ensuring clear and concise reasoning for retractions is crucial, he told The Fix . 'The problem is when papers aren't retracted. The problem is when papers sit in the literature, people know there's a problem, but everybody refuses to do anything about them,' Oransky said. Further, many people use retractions to argue the government, drug companies, and others are untrustworthy. Generally, those people either 'have an axe to grind' or are 'just trying to sell the public something,' he said. A retraction simply says the information 'is unreliable.' 'It doesn't remove it from the world,' he said. However, the transparency of the process varies. Some retraction notices provide no explanation, while others include detailed reasons for the retraction. One of the retracted papers in the list, which question why children are being vaccinated against COVID-19, was withdrawn due to 'unreliable' findings stemming from 'inappropriate bias,' according to the retraction notice. Another paper on COVID-19 vaccination risks was completely withdrawn without any explanation. Oransky told The Fix that full withdrawals are not considered best practice. In other instances, retractions occurred because the author or editor sought further information they wanted to include or because of a technical error that occurred during the study that affected the results. The College Fix reached out to the publisher of the COVID vaccination risk study, Elsevier , seeking an answer as to why the paper was removed without an explanation. The publisher said because the article was published in 2020, it wouldn't be able to determine why it was withdrawn within a reasonable amount of time. Click here to read more Also read: Trump Could Be About To Ban COVID Vaccines; Report
