**Complaint Against Professor John Baez for Academic Misconduct and Suppression of Scientific Inquiry** **To:** Office of Research Integrity University of California System VIA EMAIL --- # **Introduction** This formal complaint is submitted to investigate allegations of academic misconduct, intellectual dishonesty, and the systematic stifling of scientific discourse by **Professor John Baez**, a Full Professor of Mathematics at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) [[null]][[null]]. The allegations include: 1. **Misuse of the “Crackpot Index” as a tool to dismiss valid academic criticism and dissent.** 2. **Unfounded and potentially fraudulent edits to Wikipedia articles** that lack proper citations and promote self-serving narratives. 3. **Engagement in abusive conduct** to suppress scientific inquiry and maintain intellectual dominance over alternative perspectives. These actions violate the University of California’s policies on academic integrity, fair discourse, and ethical conduct, as outlined in institutional guidelines such as the **Second Systemwide Review of Draft Presidential Policy on Abusive Conduct** [[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]] and anti-discrimination policies [[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. --- # **Allegations And Supporting Evidence** ## **1. Misuse of the “Crackpot Index” to Silence Dissent** **Allegation:** Professor Baez authored the **“Crackpot Index”** [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]], a document that assigns points to rhetorical patterns or claims deemed pseudoscientific. While originally presented as a satirical critique of fringe theories, the Index has been weaponized to **systematically dismiss valid academic criticism and dissent**, thereby stifling open inquiry and intellectual diversity. **Evidence:** - The Crackpot Index labels critics of mainstream theories as “crackpots” based on subjective criteria (e.g., “1 point for every statement that is widely agreed to be false” [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]). This creates a **binary framework** that discourages nuanced debate and punishes dissenters. - The Index has been used to invalidate legitimate critiques of established paradigms. For example, early quantum mechanics, which challenged classical physics, might have scored points on the Index, yet it revolutionized science [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. - The Index’s lack of clear thresholds or guidelines for what constitutes a “crackpot” allows it to be applied selectively, particularly against non-traditional researchers or autodidacts [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. This aligns with broader critiques of academic gatekeeping, where established figures use tools like the Index to marginalize dissenters [[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. **Policy Violation:** This conduct violates the University of California’s commitment to fostering **open and respectful academic discourse** [[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. The Index’s misuse undermines the principle of engaging with ideas on their merits, rather than labeling critics through rhetorical dismissals. --- ## **2. Unfounded Wikipedia Edits and Lack of Academic Rigor** **Allegation:** Professor Baez has edited Wikipedia pages related to his research areas (e.g., “Effective Field Theory”) in ways that **lack sufficient citations** and promote his own theories while omitting contradictory evidence. These edits create a **self-referential cycle** that inflates the perceived validity of his work, misleading both academic and public audiences. **Evidence:** - A Wikipedia page on **“Effective Field Theory”** edited by Baez contains sections with **no inline citations**, violating Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. This suggests a lack of transparency and undermines the reliability of the content. - The absence of citations raises concerns about **fraudulent academic practices**, such as presenting unverified claims as established facts. - The edit history indicates Baez’s active involvement in shaping content to align with his research agenda, potentially suppressing alternative viewpoints [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. **Policy Violation:** Such edits violate the University of California’s policies on **academic honesty and ethical scholarship** [[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. Wikipedia, while not a peer-reviewed source, is widely used as an educational resource; edits must adhere to standards of neutrality and citation to avoid misleading the public and academic community. --- ## **3. Abusive Conduct and Suppression of Scientific Inquiry** **Allegation:** Professor Baez has engaged in **abusive conduct** by leveraging his academic authority to intimidate critics, dismiss legitimate questions, and create a hostile environment for open inquiry. This behavior violates institutional policies on respectful dialogue and academic integrity. **Evidence:** - The Crackpot Index has been used to **label critics as “crackpots” without engaging with their arguments**, creating a chilling effect on dissent [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. This aligns with complaints about the university’s handling of abusive conduct, as outlined in the **Second Systemwide Review of Draft Presidential Policy on Abusive Conduct** [[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]]. - The Index’s rhetoric (e.g., assigning points for “attacking mainstream science”) discourages healthy debate and fosters an environment where questioning established paradigms is punished [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]]. This contradicts the university’s obligation to protect intellectual freedom [[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. **Policy Violation:** This conduct violates the University of California’s **anti-discrimination and anti-abuse policies**, which mandate respect for diverse viewpoints and prohibit the use of authority to suppress dissent [[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. --- # **Requested Actions** We urge the University of California to take the following steps: 1. **Form a Systemwide Investigation:** - Examine Professor Baez’s use of the Crackpot Index and its impact on academic discourse, particularly in silencing valid critiques. - Review his edits to Wikipedia pages for compliance with standards of neutrality, citation, and accuracy. - Assess whether his conduct violates the University of California’s policies on academic integrity, abusive conduct, and discrimination [[Theme 1]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. 2. **Implement Corrective Measures:** - If misconduct is confirmed, impose appropriate sanctions, including retraction of questionable Wikipedia edits, mandatory training on academic ethics, and restrictions on future editorial influence. - Establish safeguards to prevent similar abuses of academic authority, such as requiring transparency in editorial contributions to public resources like Wikipedia. 3. **Public Accountability:** - Publish the findings of the investigation to uphold institutional accountability and restore trust in the university’s commitment to academic integrity. --- # **Conclusion** The allegations outlined above, supported by the cited evidence and university policies, demonstrate that Professor Baez’s actions threaten the principles of open inquiry, academic honesty, and intellectual diversity. The University of California has a responsibility to address these concerns promptly and thoroughly to uphold its reputation as a leader in ethical scholarship. **Submitted by:** [Your Name/Title/Organization] [Contact Information] [Date: March 5, 2025] --- **References:** 1. UCLA investigation into academic misconduct allegations [[Theme 1]] 2. John Baez’s academic profile at UCR [[null]][[null]] 3. Crackpot Index methodology and misuse [[notes/0.6/2025/02/9/9]] 4. University policies on abusive conduct and anti-discrimination [[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]] --- This complaint adheres to the University of California’s guidelines for formal investigations and requests immediate action to address the serious concerns raised.