Defamation notice!

*

I have been libelled in the prestigious academic journal Sage Publications by a group of 7 American and European academics.  

They describe themselves as "an international group of autistic scholars of autism and neurodiversity".  

In reality, they are a Northern Hemisphere Group who gained their qualifications in the USA and UK. I say this because I don't know their actual geographical origins.  For brevity's sake, I will refer to them as the "G7" 

For the record, my qualifications are from an Australian University, though my ethnic origins are Eastern European.  My work is thus from the Southern Hemisphere, and I will fight any attempts on the part of any Northocentric G7 to colonise it

The G7 comprises Monique Botha, Robert Chapman, Morénike Giwa Onaiwu, Steven Kapp,  Abs Stannard Ashley, and Nick Walker. 

As scholars in the Social "Sciences" (putatively), we welcome critique - that is the whole basis of the scientific method. But critique is supposed to be based on verifiable and accredited facts, and expressed in respectful dialogue. Unfortunately the information the G7 provide is based on unreliable testimonies from non-academic source(s), social media gossip, and misinterpretations that would appear to be self-serving to all but the most innocent reader, (or your average social media blood-hunting troll)  

Is the G7 engaging in wilful competitive sledging?   Or is it simply wishful thinking by rivals trying to clamber over each other on the greasy pole to academic pre-eminence? Whichever  the case, it is immaterial. Academics are meant to research their claims, and it is glaringly obvious that G7 have not done so. 

It is hugely dispiriting to find that these credentiallyed scholars, including a couple of luminaries of the "Neurodiversity" discourse, continue to rely on the testimonies and "memories" of a non-scholar, Martijn "McDutchie" Dekker. I comprehensively rebutted Dekker's libellous op-ed several months ago. If you have a serious interest in this issue or an academic background, my rebuttal of Dekker's unscholarly opinions and memories is  pre-requisite reading. 

More so, it is disturbing that the combined research skills of these eminent PhD bearers did not extend to the most basic tenets of fact-checking, i.e. 

1. going back to original source documents
2. interviewing the subject of their allegations before rushing into print. 

There are several possible explanation for the G7's  negligence:

1. Educational standards have fallen so low that anyone can get a doctorate without basic research skills. (Unlikely)
2. Their doctoral program did not include an ethics component. (Hard to believe).
   Corrollary: if the G7 weren't required to complete an Ethics component.  can we conclude that they have no innate ability to distinguish right from wrong without supervision?
3. Wilful disregard and fear of accidentally discovering evidence that does not support their urgent need to eclipse my reputation
4. Could it be humanly possible that the letter was born of unbearable resentment and frustration  that they "couldda, shouldda, wouldda" thought of the "Neurodiversity" buzzword firts themselves, but didn't?

I am not hard to find, and indeed Chapman has contacted me by video conference in the past. I need hardly point out that it is so much easier to libel a fellow scholar if you don't have to "look them in the eye, (in the case of autistics who, like myself, can have difficulty with eye-contact, I mean "at least be in the presence of the accused, by whatever means, whether  video, audio or otherwise").  

If the G7 had made even the slightest effort to contact me before rushing in to discredit me, or even had a modicum of common sense, they might have learned some basic facts. Including that I have retained all my correspondence with Harvey Blume, which shows that he knew nothing about disability politics, and learned the term "neurodiversity" from me. (Blume was simply a freelance journalist specialising in interviewing literary figures.  Blume wrote on the topic of autistics in cyberspace once or twice, a quarter century ago (!) then moved on entirely.) 

I would hope the G7 scholars have not been relying  on Wikipedia's nameless and self-appointed Northocentric "editors" with dubious qualifications if any. These folks have been playing around with my entry for about 2 decades now. I long ago gave up trying to set the record straight with them.  Perhaps it's impossible for Wikipedia's amateurs to imagine that someone who is neither American nor Male is capable of coming up with a Big Idea all by themselves! Nor do journalistic ethics and laws of libel appear to daunt the Wikipedia crew. 

I believe I sent the relevant parts of my correspondence with Blume to Chapman a few years ago, but then there is a possibility there's confirmation-biased forgetfulness right there. Mine or his? Pretty sure it is his, but in the interests of transparency, watch this space, as I have to go back to my archives.  Unfortunately my techie friend who stored them for me, G-d only knows where,  has Long Covid. Watch this space. 

My detailed refutation of the G7's self-serving claims is currently with the journal that published them. Whether the G7's allegations were deliberately made in bad faith, or simply based on wishful thinking cherry-picked from social media gossip is irrelevant (ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse. We are meant to have an innate moral and ethical sense).  Irrespective of the G7's motives.  I am forced to seek legal advice.

So much for solidarity and collegiality amongst the Neurodivergent "community"!