About
Deconstructing Academia is a public argument about knowledge: who gets to create it, whose language is treated as intelligent, whose experience counts as evidence, whose work gets cited, and who gets shut out before the conversation begins.
The point is not to make academia friendlier. The point is to make knowledge harder to hoard.
The method
Every piece here runs the same basic questions, sometimes called The Second Look:
- What am I being shown as normal, natural, neutral, or inevitable?
- Who created the category, definition, statistic, or official story?
- What history had to disappear for this explanation to make sense?
- Whose experience, knowledge, labor, or suffering is missing?
- Who gains power, legitimacy, money, safety, or comfort when this story is accepted?
- What does reality look like when the missing information is restored?
Who's asking
Placeholder — replace before launch. This section needs Mabbit's real bio
(lived experience, academic training, and why this project exists) in her own words. Claude
isn't inventing biography, credentials, or claims here — per the project brief, that has to
come from Lori directly. Draft it whenever you're ready and I'll drop it straight in.
Editorial values
- Plainspoken. Skeptical. Funny when the absurdity earns it. Rigorous. Politically awake.
- A citation supports the point — it doesn't become the personality.
- No manufactured "both sides" paragraph when the evidence supports a conclusion.
- Necessary nuance stays. Cowardly hedging goes.
Evidence commitments
Placeholder. Add your sourcing/corrections policy here (how claims are
checked, how corrections are handled) once you've settled on the exact language.