Experts of course rely on #1. But #1 keeps us isolated. A single manuscript or experiment can be a life's work. With #2, we see how her experiment illuminates my manuscript, and vis versa. When done right, a PhD program encourages looking for inspiration from others outside your niche. /14
Attacks on DEI (and all adjacent topics) is an attack on this spirit of intellectual cross-fertilization. To pick one: I don't do gender studies, but gender studies were necessary for me to understand a 10th century queen's patronizing of apocalyptic ideas. I *needed* GS to do good history. /15
But I want to emphasize: a white cis-man saying "This helped me" is NOT required to justify gender studies, African American studies, or whatever else. But because these topics were based, in part, on an analysis of #2 (the dreaded "theory"!), they are accused of being invalid by solipsists. /16
Solipsistic researchers think they can acquire expertise individually. But expertise is, first, acquired from experts and, second/importantly, *done* with experts. One cannot *do* expertise without other experts and students. "Nice wheel you got there. But have you also domesticated horses?" /17
Moxon does a great job. Please read it. All the above is meant to supplement, feebly, what he said so well. Cheers! /end