<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Sorry we assigned a racist to review your book	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sorrywatch.com/sorry-we-assigned-a-racist-to-review-your-book/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sorrywatch.com/sorry-we-assigned-a-racist-to-review-your-book/</link>
	<description>Analyzing apologies in the news, media, history and literature. We condemn the bad and exalt the good.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:31:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Weekend reads: A &#34;culture of fear?&#34;; blogs vs. academic papers; neurosurgery retractions on the rise - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch		</title>
		<link>https://sorrywatch.com/sorry-we-assigned-a-racist-to-review-your-book/#comment-207887</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Weekend reads: A &#34;culture of fear?&#34;; blogs vs. academic papers; neurosurgery retractions on the rise - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sorrywatch.com/?p=5048#comment-207887</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] American History Review apologizes for a review written by a professor seen by many as a white supremacist and commissions another review — but doesn&#8217;t retract the original. (Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed) &#8220;An excellent apology would have skipped the feeble self-justifying and gone straight to the second graf, which starts, &#8216;Regrettably, we did not dig further,&#039;&#8221; says SorryWatch on the request for retraction. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] American History Review apologizes for a review written by a professor seen by many as a white supremacist and commissions another review — but doesn&#8217;t retract the original. (Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed) &#8220;An excellent apology would have skipped the feeble self-justifying and gone straight to the second graf, which starts, &#8216;Regrettably, we did not dig further,&#039;&#8221; says SorryWatch on the request for retraction. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
