H&RM empty out the critical clout of calling #racism by stretching it to far-fetched speculations about our theory. What’s left to call the actual racism playing out around us today? Is devaluing the category ‘racist’ useful? #TrivilializingRacism #AcademicNavelgazing 2/18

Strange combination of extreme conclusions & aggressive allegations with very weak textual analysis: the article miscites, misunderstands, makes things up, demonstrably misrepresents, use guilt by association: You cite Durkheim? Arendt? Your’re racist! 3/18

Their dramatic conclusion: Kick out the theory! Ban the word! No check if good analyses of racism have been done with the theory (they have) or could be. ANY use of it on any issue is racist. Our writings allegedly aim(!!) to uphold a violent racial order &protect white supremacy

The journal did not send the article to us in advance to comment #RightOfReply On the contrary, they meticulously filtered our reply for any potentially hurtful word. At this stage, lawyers entered checking for libel. In the reply. Kafka revisited 5/18

To be accused of racism all throughout a peer-reviewed article is just like any scholarly debate = being called positivist or historically inaccurate. Said the editors. Why are you upset: it is only your books and theory, not you that are deemed racist #SdScandal 6/18

The critique claims that our theory depicts Europe as a paradise of de-securitization and Africa as the dangerous source of irrational securitizations. It’s exactly the other way around, as everyone knows: the theory was developed to warn against securitizations in Europe 7/18

Their evidence? One passage where we envisage a counterargument to our own theory. They cite this passage more than any other; as if it was our position. No mention of our several books and dozens of articles with the opposite picture of Europe. Disingenuous indeed 8/18

The claims ab Africa mostly ref our 2003book #RegionsAndPowers . That book is not mainly #SecuritizationTheory . It develops another theory #RegionalSecurityComplex . They don’t mention this once. The book analyses all world regions. They make its Africa chpt key to SecZationTheory

They write #SecZationTheory “often (…)treats the entire continent of Africa as a single entity” – and nowhere mention that this is in a book about regions! The book is one big study of to what degree regions can be coherent objects of analysis. All regions. How manipulative! 10/

Mills’ famous #RacialContract thesis they want to affix to us. A key claim for them is therefore: our theory is based on SocialContract. It is not. They find one usage of the term. It is Wæver quoting Sbisà. They quote it as written by Wæver. Unacceptable 11/18

They repeat numerous times our theory is 'liberal', assumes 'reasoned, civilized dialogue', is ‘avowedly conservative’, ‘allegedly neutral’ and has a fixed route of historical progress. All false. Deep disconnect from the fundamental nature of the theory. Editor knows. Why then?

Their general method: cut sentences out of context from any empirical case, splice them together at will and claim this defines the key concepts. No attention to the pages where concepts are actually presented&defined. Dozens of violent mis-interpretations of passages & concepts

Ultimately this is #deepfake as methodology. Fragments from 1000s of pages are spliced together with no mention of what those sentences did in their actual place. Our critics make these bits speak THEIR racist talk. No connection to meaning in the original texts 14/18

H&RM discredit&damage the fields of anti-racism & postcolonialism with which this will be associated. Crucial work in these fields get hurt by attention-seeking entrepreneurs who care more about scoring popular points than about standards of evidence & argument. Irresponsible 15/

In addition to the short reply in the journal, we have uploaded a long version. It documents the misdeeds of the attack piece in detail AND goes beyond it to think constructively about better ways to address & analyze racism, in scholarship & in the world

This #SdScandal raises serious questions for the field: can you do every manipulation as long as it is for a good cause? Misrepresentations like this lead to retraction in many fields. In #SecurityStudies ? Flawed pieces remain if only peer reviewed? No! Re-read COPE rules 17/18

The articles criteria can prove anybody racist; ever cited Arendt? You’re too! Buzan&I are lucky enough to need less protection than most. What culture do we get if we allow #DishonestCritique #MadeUpCharges ? Who’ll feel safe? AntiRacism loses if academia self-immolates like this

@ole_waever I've read the H&RM article and I'm baffled as to why SD found it fit to publish the piece. I've also decided to finally push on and finish my paper on using securitisation to study the ethnic heterogeneity of migration flows.

@dr_denny_penny Thank you! I look forward to reading that. Certainly much that remains to be done in this area, also to improve the theory. Some tentative ideas in our long reply - and would be happy to see critical development beyond what we managed to do

@ole_waever Som en der snart starter sin PhD, så er historier som den her virkelig noget der skræmmer mig for mødet med den akademiske debatkultur.

@ChristiernR Til beroligelse: dette er by far det værste jeg -i et langt forskerliv- har set. Ikke bare det værste jeg selv er blevet mødt med, men SET. Ikke normalt! Slet ikke. Og vi bør forhindre, at faconen drejer den vej. Med ansvarlighed fra alle, er det muligt. Velkommen 😉