ADOS Advocacy Foundation Rebuts Harvard's Replacement Negroe Disinformation Attack

adosfoundation  |  At a time when our wealthiest colleges and universities ought to be reckoning with the distinct role that slavery played in creating and sustaining them, and working with Black communities outside of academia to secure racial justice, it is regrettable to see Harvard University using its institutional might to try and discredit and libel activists most committed to that cause.

The Harvard Kennedy School's Misinformation Review's recent publication, "Disinformation creep: ADOS and the strategic weaponization of breaking news", is a clear attempt to use the Ivy League institution's esteemed name to legitimize an ongoing smear campaign directed at the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) movement. The report ascribes a familiar set of demonstrably false motivations to our political advocacy, with the authors frequently substituting subjective claims, innuendo, and outright lies for the sort of empirically-backed assertions one would expect to find in a publication from such a prestigious university.

Indeed, Disinformation creep's own language highlights the authors' corrupt and biased approach: "The tweets in Figures 2-5," they write, "are examples of breaking news stories which led to a spike of activity within the ADOS network (which do not necessarily correspond to the overall spikes shown in Figure 1). We then chose the ones that best illustrated the point we wanted to make" (emphasis ours).

In other words, the authors acknowledge combing through the data and seeking to make their findings conform to a predetermined opinion of what the ADOS movement represents. Leaving aside the matter of how this method is the very antithesis of the kind of spirit that should animate and guide honest inquiry and investigation into a particular subject, the examples used by the report's authors do not actually bear out the "point [they] wanted to make". Instead, the authors' careless relationship to methodology and analysis frequently propels the material squarely into the terrain of libel.

We intend to enumerate the report's chief claims and supply evidence to the contrary that will lay bare the defamatory nature of the report. In so doing we will prove how, in an attempt to police the acceptable bounds of black political agency in America, it maliciously conveys false information to its audience.

We demand a formal apology from Harvard and that the publisher issue a full and timely retraction of this document. The retraction must appear in Misinformation Review's next issue so its readers can gain a full understanding of the report's unsound scholarship and how the authors have baselessly vilified our movement and directly violated the journal's own stated mission of combating misinformation.