Peter Kahl (they/them)
LightNews LightNews
leader-ship.bsky.social
Peter Kahl (they/them)
@leader-ship.bsky.social
86 followers 100 following 240 posts
Epistemic Psychology & Fiduciary Governance Innovator
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Kahl
Posts Replies Media Videos
leader-ship.bsky.social
When a late-night host is suspended under political pressure, dissent is re-coded as disobedience. What we are seeing in Trump’s America is not free debate—it is an architecture of obedience.

Read my essay:
Kimmel Suspended, Colbert Outraged
doi.org/10.13140/RG....
A cracked television screen shows late-night hosts Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jon Stewart, their faces fractured by the shattering. In front of the TV stands the dark silhouette of Donald Trump, hands on hips. The image symbolises political pressure on broadcasters, censorship, and the authoritarian ‘architecture of obedience’ discussed in the essay.
September 20, 2025 at 11:47 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Nazi camp guard as test case: obedience = epistemic submission.

Redefines authority, post-Raz, as fiduciary–epistemic trusteeship.

doi.org/10.13140/rg....

#Democracy #Philosophy #Authoritarianism
Front page of the work, its tile, and author's name: Authoritarianism and the Architecture of Obedience From Fiduciary–Epistemic Trusteeship to Clientelist Betrayal Peter Kahl
September 19, 2025 at 2:34 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
UK Civil Service “serious games” = theatre, not democracy.
Symbolic inclusion, scripted outcomes, fiduciary breaches.

I set out Fairness Duties in Participatory Design: notice, reasons, access, proportionality.
Without them, participation is hollow.

dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG....

#Democracy
Cartoon in a bold pop-art style showing a smiling civil servant in a suit riding a tricycle out of a “Policy Design Pavilion” towards a cliff labelled “Public Trust.” He is cheered on by colleagues with balloons and applause, while protesters on the other side hold placards reading “Ignored Input,” “Critical Voices,” and “Unheard Knowledge.” A bright starburst labelled “Fiduciary Duty” is in the sky, ignored by the official. The image illustrates the paper’s argument that UK Civil Service “serious games” and participatory design practices create the spectacle of inclusion while disregarding critical voices, breaching fiduciary–epistemic duties and eroding democratic trust.
September 17, 2025 at 10:22 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Vers une cité des libres penseurs

Un manifeste multimodal — poésie, essai, image — qui affirme que l’émancipation épistémique commence par le refus : le doute comme semence, le silence comme terre, l’auto-affranchissement comme acte.

philpapers.org/rec/KAHVUC

#LibertéÉpistémique #Philosophie
Une scène surréaliste aux couleurs ardentes. Au premier plan, une silhouette sombre enchaînée avance dans un désert jonché de fragments métalliques. À droite, une roue dentée monumentale est fissurée par un éclair incandescent, symbole de rupture et de libération. Dans le ciel dramatique, un œil immense observe, tandis que des oiseaux s’élancent vers la lumière. Des flammes et des éclats en suspension accentuent la tension entre oppression et émancipation.
September 3, 2025 at 8:51 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Went to Notting Hill Carnival for the first time this Monday.

What struck me wasn’t just feathers + sound systems, but how those usually invisible in Britain take the centre stage. For 3 days a year, the margins become the centre.

pkahl.substack.com/p/the-carniv...

#NottingHillCarnival #Race
Illustrated scene of three Black women joyfully dancing at Notting Hill Carnival, each wearing vibrant Rio-style costumes with feathered headdresses in orange, turquoise, and green. They smile with arms raised as colourful confetti falls, while a diverse crowd of onlookers cheers behind them.
August 26, 2025 at 11:28 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Are UK universities becoming a lemons market?

Opaque rankings and conflicted think tanks misprice £200bn in systemic risk.

Read:
pkahl.substack.com/p/the-market...

#HigherEducation #SystemicRisk #Markets #Governance #Transparency #RatingsReform #PublicAccountability #StudentLoans
A suited man stands at a market stall stacked with bright yellow lemons under a sign reading ‘UNIVERSITY RANKINGS’. He examines a lemon closely with a sceptical expression, holding a folder in his other hand. The scene symbolises doubt and mispricing in higher education rankings.
August 21, 2025 at 12:32 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Publishing ≠ pure merit.
It’s passing the gatekeeper’s test.

When It Comes to Publishing, the House Rules — how what we read (and believe) is shaped long before it reaches us.

pkahl.substack.com/p/when-it-co...

#PublishingGatekeepers #MediaPower #EditorialBias
A pop art–style comic illustration divided diagonally by a bold yellow lightning bolt. On the left, a serious-looking man in glasses, a white shirt with rolled-up sleeves, and a patterned tie stands beside a printing press, holding an old-fashioned black telephone handset to his ear. He reads from a sheet of paper and says “GOT IT.” in a speech bubble. On the right, a wealthy-looking older man in a suit and gold tie lounges in a plush red chair with gold trim, holding a matching old-fashioned telephone handset to his ear. In front of him sits a glass of whiskey with a single large ice cube. The background features halftone textures and saturated colors in the style of Roy Lichtenstein, with thick black outlines.
August 15, 2025 at 6:03 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just published an Open Letter to Sir David Bell (HEPI trustee), explicitly raising serious concerns over fiduciary transparency, conflicts of interest, and epistemic integrity in UK higher education governance.

raw.githubusercontent.com/Peter-Kahl/H...

#Transparency #HigherEd #Governance
Just published an Open Letter to Sir David Bell (HEPI trustee), explicitly raising serious concerns over fiduciary transparency, conflicts of interest, and epistemic integrity in UK higher education governance.
August 4, 2025 at 11:41 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
The crisis of higher education is the feast of the elites.
And journalists? They don’t report on the feast—they have reserved seats at the table.

“How Institutional Corruption Captured UK Higher Education Journalism”

pkahl.substack.com/p/institutio...

#FiduciaryBreaches
#EpistemicClientelism
In this thesis, I critically examine how institutional corruption, operationalised through epistemic clientelism and fiduciary opacity, systematically compromises journalism covering UK higher education (HE). Drawing explicitly on my previously developed theoretical frameworks—Epistemic Clientelism Theory (Kahl 2025), fiduciary epistemology, and constitutional critiques of media institutions as epistemic gatekeepers (‘Epistemic Gatekeepers as the Fourth Estate’, Kahl 2025)—and integrating Lawrence Lessig’s theory of institutional corruption and Brian Klaas’s analysis of elite power dynamics, I demonstrate that prominent UK media organisations (notably Times Higher Education and The Guardian) have become structurally dependent upon elite institutional and commercial interests. Through rigorous empirical analysis, detailed case studies (e.g., Anna Fazackerley’s affiliations with Policy Exchange, THE’s commercial relationships), and sociological network mapping, I expose how entrenched networks of privilege, financial dependencies, and reciprocal professional alignments among journalists, higher education institutions, and policy elites systematically erode democratic accountability, epistemic fairness, and public trust. Further, this research situates journalism within broader elite trajectories connecting privileged education (notably Oxbridge), influential journalistic roles, and subsequent political power—highlighting structural vulnerabilities enabling epistemic control, narrative conformity, and fiduciary breaches. To address these vulnerabilities, I propose robust fiduciary reforms including structurally independent fiduciary journalists, mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosures, a formal Journalistic Hippocratic Oath, fiduciary oversight boards, regular fiduciary audits, and strengthened legislative oversight. Ultimately, this thesis articulates and defends my original theoretical model—The Theory of Institutional Corruption through Epistemic Clientelism ...
August 3, 2025 at 7:32 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
World University Rankings Not as Honest as Claimed?

Today I’ve formally issued legal demands to Times Higher Education CEO John Gill, explicitly requiring transparency on fiduciary conflicts and governance concerns.

Transparency matters.

www.scribd.com/document/894...

#HigherEd #Governance
Re: Public Notice—Fiduciary, Epistemic, and Governance Concerns Regarding THE World University Rankings Dear Mr Gill, I write explicitly and publicly to address significant fiduciary, epistemic, governance, and transparency concerns relating to Times Higher Education’s (THE) World University Rankings. Given THE’s publicly stated role as an authoritative independent evaluator of universities worldwide, alongside its simultaneous operation as a private commercial entity deriving income from ranked institutions via subscriptions, consultancy services, advertising, events, and related commercial activities, substantial fiduciary conflicts and governance issues arise. 1. Fiduciary and Conflict-of-Interest Concerns (Companies Act 2006, Section 172) Explicitly, the dual roles THE occupies—as evaluator of universities and commercial partner of those same institutions—create potential conflicts under fiduciary and statutory duties. Under Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, directors of THE have an explicit statutory duty to promote the success of the company while transparently managing conflicts that could compromise the independence and integrity of THE’s rankings and advisory services. 2. Transparency and Accountability Failures (Administrative Law Principles) The proprietary and opaque nature of THE’s rankings methodology explicitly contravenes fundamental principles of transparency and procedural fairness expected in decision-making that significantly impacts public institutions and the allocation of public resources. The absence of transparent methodological disclosures to the public, exacerbated by paywall restrictions, fundamentally undermines THE’s claimed legitimacy as an independent evaluator. 3. Epistemic Gatekeeping and Exclusion (Equality Act 2010) THE’s ranking methodologies explicitly privilege certain types of knowledge production, institution types, and research activities, potentially breaching the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149, Equal...
July 29, 2025 at 8:29 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
My de facto "Theory of AI Governance"—already generates strong interest internationally. Contrary to Coeckelbergh’s “technodemocracy,” I propose “epistemocracy”—emphasising explicit human accountability and fiduciary transparency.

pkahl.substack.com/p/ai-democra...

#AI #Governance #Democracy
Mark Coeckelbergh’s recent book, Why AI Undermines Democracy (2024), argues compellingly that artificial intelligence (AI) intrinsically threatens democratic governance by facilitating epistemic manipulation, deepening knowledge asymmetries, and fostering political alienation. While acknowledging Coeckelbergh’s valuable insights into democratic vulnerabilities exacerbated by digital technologies, this essay critiques his foundational assumption that AI inherently possesses political or epistemic agency. Drawing upon fiduciary epistemic theory—particularly elaborated in my works Epistemic Justice and Institutional Responsibility in Academia (2025) and Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary Openness (2025)—I propose an alternative governance framework, termed ‘epistemocracy’, which explicitly locates epistemic and moral responsibility within human institutional actors rather than technological artefacts. Unlike Coeckelbergh’s ‘technodemocracy’, epistemocracy prioritises fiduciary transparency, institutional accountability, and epistemic pluralism as foundational to democratic governance of AI. Ultimately, the essay argues that attributing inherent political agency to AI obscures crucial institutional responsibilities and weakens democratic safeguards. Recognising AI as epistemically neutral and embedding fiduciary epistemic duties into governance structures provides clearer, more robust pathways for institutional reform, democratic accountability, and sustainable epistemic justice in AI governance. Keywords AI governance, artificial intelligence ethics, democracy, democratic accountability, democratic reform, digital humanism, epistemic agency, epistemic bubbles, epistemic justice, epistemic neutrality, epistemocracy, epistemic pluralism, fiduciary duties, fiduciary epistemic theory, governance frameworks, institutional accountability, institutional responsibility, institutional transparency, knowledge asymmetries, Mark Coeckelbergh, political epistemology
July 24, 2025 at 7:36 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
My new essay critically analyses the UK Civil Service’s recent policy design pavilion, exposing performative openness and epistemic gatekeeping. Proposing solutions for genuine democratic accountability.

pkahl.substack.com/p/critical-l...

#EpistemicJustice #Democracy #PolicyDesign #Transparency
This essay critically examines Andrew Knight’s celebratory blog post on the UK Civil Service’s policy design pavilion at the London Design Biennale, exposing underlying issues of epistemic gatekeeping, performative openness, and insufficient fiduciary accountability. While Knight frames the event as a demonstration of democratic participation and transparency through public engagement, closer analysis reveals superficial inclusivity and curated epistemic control. Drawing from my recent scholarship—specifically ‘Epistemic Gatekeepers and Epistemic Injustice by Design’ (2025) and ‘Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary Openness’ (2025)—I argue that without transparent epistemic criteria, clear accountability mechanisms, and authentic democratic co-creation, such policy initiatives risk becoming mere spectacles rather than meaningful democratic exercises. To address these shortcomings, the essay proposes explicit solutions, including epistemic transparency, structured accountability frameworks, critical reflexivity, and genuine epistemic pluralism, offering a blueprint for achieving authentic democratic legitimacy in government policy design. Keywords epistemic justice, epistemic gatekeeping, fiduciary openness, democratic accountability, performative openness, policy design, public participation, epistemic transparency, critical reflexivity, democratic epistemology, co-creation, institutional accountability, epistemic pluralism, UK Civil Service, institutional reform, governance ethics, public sector innovation, knowledge equity, transparency, design thinking
July 24, 2025 at 7:26 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Three Immoral Deeds of the Tyrant: How a Tyrant Feeds, Bribes, and Silences (暴君三惡)

How Donald Trump and his authoritarian role models manufacture trauma, bribe loyalty, and steal the word “harmony”.

pkahl.substack.com/p/three-immo...

#donaldtrump
#epistemicjustice
#governance
#chinesephilosophy
In both its Chinese and English versions, Three Immoral Deeds of the Tyrant renders a poetic anatomy of authoritarian rule in three acts: the manufacturing of trauma, the orchestration of dependency, and the appropriation of moral language. While the poem emerges from a sinophone philosophical sensibility, its resonance is unmistakably global—reflected in modern populist-authoritarian figures worldwide, from Eastern regimes to Western democracies in decay. Three Immoral Deeds of the Tyrant is more than poetic indictment—it is a philosophical argument, rendered in classical and modern idioms alike. It speaks not just of one nation, but of a global pattern. Where trauma is engineered, dependency curated, and language manipulated, tyranny has already taken root. It is for those who speak—before they are silenced—to make injustice visible, and thus, reversible.
July 15, 2025 at 7:01 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
From Silicon Valley engineer to fearless litigator.
With proven courtroom experience and a record of successful advocacy, I fight strategically—and win decisively.

(Photo: Moot session, Staffordshire University, 2020. Not a licensed barrister.)

Firms, chambers, barristers, lawyers ... contact me.
I am a multidisciplinary researcher, governance theorist, and experienced litigator based in Reading, England, whose professional trajectory integrates high-stakes engineering, fiduciary governance innovation, rigorous courtroom advocacy, and groundbreaking scholarship in AI governance. Initially, as Principal Engineer at National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments) in Silicon Valley, I led global innovations in Deep Tech—specialising in semiconductor design, embedded systems, and mission-critical technologies, including spaceborne systems. Later redirecting my career toward law, ethics, and epistemic governance, I became an innovator in fiduciary theory, developing original frameworks to address institutional accountability, transparency, and epistemic justice. I have also authored a novel theory of AI governance articulated in my recent publication, Is Artificial Intelligence Really Undermining Democracy? (Peter Kahl, 2025), which critically analyses AI’s impact on democratic structures, institutional trust, and epistemic integrity. My practical courtroom experience is substantial and diverse, demonstrating independent advocacy and successful outcomes. I have represented myself assertively and successfully in private-law matters, managed complex procedural applications, and argued sophisticated legal points directly before judges. During formal legal training (LLB programme at Staffordshire University), I confidently argued complex equity and land-law issues, referencing landmark decisions such as Jones v Kernott and Stack v Dowden, demonstrating clarity and authority under judicial questioning. My broad litigation expertise spans criminal defence, contract breaches, fiduciary disputes, intellectual property, digital-platform governance, and strategic epistemic analysis including the Reasonable Man Test. These capabilities reflect my fearless advocacy ethos, strategic precision, and rights-based approach to complex legal matters.
July 13, 2025 at 12:57 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
My essay challenges M Coeckelbergh’s view on AI and democracy. I argue for #epistemocracy, focusing on human accountability, institutional transparency, and fiduciary epistemic duties in AI governance.

pkahl.substack.com/p/ai-democra...

#AI #Governance #EpistemicJustice #Democracy #Philosophy
Mark Coeckelbergh’s recent book, Why AI Undermines Democracy (2024), argues compellingly that artificial intelligence (AI) intrinsically threatens democratic governance by facilitating epistemic manipulation, deepening knowledge asymmetries, and fostering political alienation. While acknowledging Coeckelbergh’s valuable insights into democratic vulnerabilities exacerbated by digital technologies, this essay critiques his foundational assumption that AI inherently possesses political or epistemic agency. Drawing upon fiduciary epistemic theory—particularly elaborated in my works Epistemic Justice and Institutional Responsibility in Academia (2025) and Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary Openness (2025)—I propose an alternative governance framework, termed ‘epistemocracy’, which explicitly locates epistemic and moral responsibility within human institutional actors rather than technological artefacts. Unlike Coeckelbergh’s ‘technodemocracy’, epistemocracy prioritises fiduciary transparency, institutional accountability, and epistemic pluralism as foundational to democratic governance of AI. Ultimately, the essay argues that attributing inherent political agency to AI obscures crucial institutional responsibilities and weakens democratic safeguards. Recognising AI as epistemically neutral and embedding fiduciary epistemic duties into governance structures provides clearer, more robust pathways for institutional reform, democratic accountability, and sustainable epistemic justice in AI governance.
July 12, 2025 at 10:20 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
"Epistemic Gatekeepers and Epistemic Injustice by Design"

I critically examine platforms like PhilPapers & academic publishers as fiduciaries.

They curate.
They exclude.
They breach duty.

Read: github.com/Peter-Kahl/E...

#epistemicjustice #academicpublishing #governance #openaccess #philosophy
In this paper, I critically examine institutional epistemic gatekeepers—including academic platforms such as PhilPapers, JSTOR, major publishers, and academic repositories—as fiduciaries entrusted with safeguarding epistemic diversity, justice, and integrity. I argue that current institutional policies systematically domesticate and marginalise diverse epistemologies through restrictive registration requirements, monomodal publication frameworks, opaque peer-review processes, and disciplinary siloisation. Drawing on my original scholarship and recent critical insights—particularly concerning epistemic humility, epistemic transposition, and epistemic domestication—I critique these gatekeeping practices as fiduciary breaches that exacerbate socioeconomic, academic, and epistemic stratification. I advocate concrete fiduciary and epistemic reforms, including transparent review processes, representational inclusivity, multimodal and multilingual scholarly frameworks, and institutional oversight committees committed to epistemic plurality and accountability. Ultimately, this paper calls upon scholarly communities and institutions to actively honour their fiduciary responsibilities, thereby fostering genuine epistemic openness, plurality, and justice.
July 7, 2025 at 11:12 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just published my new essay, “Fiduciary Governance Failures and Conflicts of Interest at PhilPapers”—a critical analysis and urgent call for governance reform, transparency, and accountability at PhilPapers.

pkahl.substack.com/p/fiduciary-...

#PhilPapers
#EpistemicJustice
#Governance
#PeterKahl
In this essay, I critically examine fiduciary governance failures and conflicts of interest at PhilPapers, focusing particularly on the dual governance and editorial roles held by Professors David Chalmers and David Bourget. Drawing upon fiduciary theory, epistemic justice principles, and my prior scholarship, I argue that the concentration of both governance oversight and editorial decision-making within the same individuals creates structural conflicts that severely compromise transparency, impartiality, and accountability. These governance deficiencies not only undermine the legitimacy and scholarly integrity of PhilPapers but also contribute to epistemic injustice by diminishing scholars’ epistemic autonomy and trust globally. To address these issues, I propose immediate reforms including clear structural separation of fiduciary and editorial roles, establishment of an independent oversight board, rigorous transparency and accountability measures, and meaningful mechanisms for stakeholder responsiveness. The implementation of these reforms is essential, not only for restoring integrity at PhilPapers but also as a globally significant precedent for similar scholarly platforms and epistemic gatekeepers.
July 6, 2025 at 8:36 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just published an open letter to David Chalmers and David Bourget of PhilPapers, calling out epistemic gatekeeping, breaches of fiduciary duties, and Kafkaesque opacity. Time for accountability in scholarly publishing.

#EpistemicJustice #PhilPapers #Transparency

pkahl.substack.com/p/open-lette...
Dear David Chalmers and David Bourget, I write this open letter to formally request public acknowledgment and resolution of persistent breaches of fiduciary-epistemic obligations at PhilPapers. As I have recently argued and advanced in my scholarly work—building upon foundational theories of fiduciary responsibility (Frankel, 2011) and epistemic accountability (Barnett, 2018)—academic repositories and platforms like PhilPapers bear critical fiduciary duties of transparency, openness, responsiveness, and epistemic accountability towards the scholarly community. My recent experiences with PhilPapers have highlighted troubling failures in fulfilling these obligations: Persistent technical barriers prevent me from uploading publications or submitting messages via the PhilPapers platform. These barriers have been accompanied by a lack of explanation or transparent communication, creating an atmosphere reminiscent of Kafkaesque opacity. Direct communications to Professors Chalmers and Bourget have gone unanswered, reflecting unresponsiveness incompatible with the fiduciary obligations you have assumed. My repeated attempts to engage PhilPapers publicly—including through explicit posts on LinkedIn—have similarly met with silence, reinforcing the perception of systemic epistemic gatekeeping.
July 6, 2025 at 11:30 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just published: “Why We Must Reject the Colonial Peer Review”.
I argue traditional peer review faces an epistemic crisis—delegating scholarly agency is irrational and unsustainable amid generative AI.

#EpistemicJustice #PeerReview #Epistemology #ResponsibleAI

pkahl.substack.com/p/epistemocr...
In this paper, I critically examine traditional academic peer review systems as mechanisms perpetuating colonial epistemic structures. Drawing explicitly on fiduciary-epistemic theory, democratic epistemology (Anderson 2006), and my comparative analysis of constitutional and statutory governance frameworks across Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and the United States, I argue that universities and institutional epistemic gatekeepers have clear moral, epistemic, and fiduciary obligations to proactively address testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. Traditional peer review processes, as I demonstrate, systematically marginalise multimodal, interdisciplinary, indigenous, and cognitively diverse scholarship, thus reinforcing epistemic homogenisation and structural epistemic injustice.
July 5, 2025 at 7:17 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
The Professors of Silence: On Institutional Epistemic Complicity and the Betrayal of Knowledge

A poetic thesis in Catalan, English, and French (PDF is at bottom of page).

pkahl.substack.com/p/els-profes...

#poetry #epistemology #Catalan #justice #DEI #ESG #epistemicjustice #academia
There are silences that do not stem from ignorance, but from calculation. This poem speaks of a willed absence: the renunciation of epistemic duty by those who know—but choose silence. In institutions where knowledge should pulse freely, too often we find closed doors, lowered eyes, and words measured with fear. Such silence is not harmless—it is a form of institutional complicity {Fricker 2007; Anderson 2012; Kahl 2025}. When those with a voice use it only to preserve their position, epistemic injustice takes root and entrenches imbalance. This text does not judge, but neither does it excuse. It is a mirror. Or perhaps a warning. For when knowledge retreats out of caution, ignorance finds the path clear to rule, and the institution grows accustomed to the void as if it were the norm. Not all professors fall silent out of fear. Some do so because they have not been heard in a long time. Others, because they have forgotten what it means to speak with risk. This poem remembers them. And it also challenges us— to keep our voices alive, when silence feels more comfortable.
June 14, 2025 at 10:39 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
When a language falls silent, it isn’t just words that die. It’s a way of knowing.
New academic miniature — a poetic reflection on linguistic extinction and epistemic loss.

pkahl.substack.com/p/quan-una-l...

#epistemicjustice #cognitivelinguistics #poetryandphilosophy #epistemicide
June 13, 2025 at 9:15 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just released: Directors’ Epistemic Duties & Fiduciary Openness — a new governance thesis reframing ESG & DEI as core epistemic responsibilities.

Let’s talk DEI as fiduciary logic.

pkahl.substack.com/p/directors-...

#ESG #DEI #Governance #Justice #Stakeholders #DiversityEqualityInclusion
In this thesis, I develop a comprehensive normative and operational framework for embedding epistemic openness within fiduciary corporate governance, arguing that directors have distinct epistemic duties requiring them to systematically integrate diverse stakeholder knowledge. Drawing on fiduciary ethics (Frankel, 2011), epistemic justice theory (Fricker, 2007; Anderson, 2012), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), and Sen’s capability approach (Sen, 2009), I demonstrate how meaningful stakeholder participation is central to organisational legitimacy, innovation, and sustainability. I explicitly counter Abraham Singer’s (2015) assertion that Rawlsian principles of justice cannot be meaningfully applied to corporate governance. Contrary to Singer, I argue that corporate governance is inherently political, given corporations’ extensive influence over public policy, economic equality, and social welfare. Therefore, appropriately contextualised Rawlsian principles of fairness are not only relevant but necessary for addressing structural epistemic injustices within contemporary corporate governance.
June 11, 2025 at 3:10 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Just published my thesis, Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary Openness, exploring how cross-cultural philosophies and epistemic justice can revolutionise corporate governance.

pkahl.substack.com/p/directors-...

#CorporateGovernance #EpistemicJustice #Ethics #Sustainability #law #policy
In this thesis, I develop a comprehensive normative and operational framework for embedding epistemic openness within fiduciary corporate governance, arguing that directors have distinct epistemic duties requiring them to systematically integrate diverse stakeholder knowledge. Drawing on fiduciary ethics (Frankel, 2011), epistemic justice theory (Fricker, 2007; Anderson, 2012), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), and Sen’s capability approach (Sen, 2009), I demonstrate how meaningful stakeholder participation is central to organisational legitimacy, innovation, and sustainability. I explicitly counter Abraham Singer’s (2015) assertion that Rawlsian principles of justice cannot be meaningfully applied to corporate governance. Contrary to Singer, I argue that corporate governance is inherently political, given corporations’ extensive influence over public policy, economic equality, and social welfare. Therefore, appropriately contextualised Rawlsian principles of fairness are not only relevant but necessary for addressing structural epistemic injustices within contemporary corporate governance.
June 11, 2025 at 10:03 AM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Universities don’t just manage resources—they steward knowledge.
What if marketing strategies risk breaching their epistemic duties?

New essay:
Epistemic Violence or Simply Good Marketing?

pkahl.substack.com/p/epistemic-...

#EpistemicJustice #AcademicFreedom #HigherEd #InstitutionalEthics
These institutional narratives also narrow the frameworks through which knowledge is interpreted and validated, thereby contributing to hermeneutical injustice {Medina 2017}. In my own research, I have argued that this results not merely from individual prejudice, but from structural asymmetries that prevent epistemically plural knowledge from entering mainstream institutional recognition {Kahl 2025}. Yet institutions are not villains. Universities like XYZ are not acting maliciously. They are responding to market pressures, competing within an environment saturated with global rankings and algorithmically driven reputational stakes. But this makes their ethical responsibilities even more urgent. As I’ve argued elsewhere, institutions of higher learning bear fiduciary epistemic duties—duties of care, loyalty, and good faith stewardship—towards their epistemic constituents: students, faculty, and the broader society {Kahl 2025}. So how might they better fulfil these duties?
June 10, 2025 at 9:26 PM
leader-ship.bsky.social
Epistemic Violence or Simply Good Marketing?
Why University Marketing May Not Be So Innocent

How daily university ranking posts may subtly marginalise diverse epistemologies. A short, sharp critique.
pkahl.substack.com/p/epistemic-...
#HigherEd #EpistemicJustice #AcademicFreedom #UniversityRankings
As I opened LinkedIn this morning, I was immediately greeted by yet another post from XYZ University. Bright visuals proudly declared: “Ranked Number One—again!” Another day, another top ranking: best in research, citations, employability. I paused, scrolling through similar announcements. I felt strangely uneasy, wondering if I was the only one sensing a quiet discomfort beneath this relentless celebration of excellence. At first glance, these announcements seem harmless, perhaps even necessary. Universities compete intensely for students, funding, and prestige. Rankings and metrics are powerful tools in this landscape. But beneath their glossy surface, these daily affirmations of institutional supremacy may constitute something more troubling: a subtle form of epistemic violence.
June 10, 2025 at 8:17 PM