Want to Be a ‘Genocide Scholar’? It Could Cost You $30 and Zero Scrutiny
After sampling a variety of odd jobs, a provocative question emerged: could a brand-new path to the title of genocide scholar exist for the taking? A little-known scholarly group has been quietly offering annual memberships at a fixed price, granting subscribers the right to participate in online votes on controversial policy resolutions.
The pricing model features a tiered entry, with adjustments based on income and a flat rate that makes membership accessible to a broader audience. The pitch is simple: sign up, and you gain a seat at the table where major resolutions are discussed and decided.
Interest surged after the model went live and a high-profile policy statement drew attention. The numbers show a rapid upsurge in sign-ups, with membership counts climbing in the months that followed. Critics argued that such an ascent might reflect ease of entry rather than genuine scholarly consensus, prompting questions about the standards that accompany a title like “genocide scholar.”
Observers have raised concerns about transparency: who participates in votes, how results are tallied, and whether the process truly reflects scholarly consensus or simply reflects who can afford to join. A public update from the organization indicated that only a fraction of members took part in the vote, and among those, the vast majority supported the resolution in question. Detractors note that if only a minority engages, headlines can misrepresent support when the broader community did not participate.
In response, supporters argued that broad inclusion in the process can broaden perspectives, but critics remain wary that a lack of rigorous vetting and accountability may turn credentialing into political theater rather than solid scholarship.
The episode invites a broader reflection on how new scholarly groups are formed and how legitimacy is established. The central question is not whether the topic deserves examination, but how gatekeeping around credibility is maintained so the public can trust the conclusions presented.
As discussions continue, readers should approach such initiatives with careful scrutiny, demanding transparent standards for membership, voting, and the basis for any published conclusions. When money becomes the gatekeeper to influence on sensitive topics, the integrity of the discourse—and the value of real scholarship—are at stake.
