One would think so. But... no. For one thing, the identity departments are not sciences, and they don't aspire to science. — Bitter Crank

Even the humanities need some kind of philosophy of science. I'm not saying that the positivistic approach, of an critical empiricism, is mandatory - that's up for debate - yet if they theorize, being scientific or philosophical in some sense is mandatory.
I'm actually confused, why you denied it. You gave the arguments regarding this yourself (if you didnt just wanted to deny my first assumption, that they are neglect their own methodology) : their telos is advocacy.

I'd rather let through some garbage than not let through something valuable and innovative because of my extensive ignorance or even more extensive bias. — unenlightened

I honestly don't know which principles of philosophy of science the so called "grievance studies" go along with. Since I suspect them to be positivistic, I assume either they require comprehensibility, some tweaked form of comprehensibility or a completely different epistemological foundation.
In the first case they'd simply be exposed as bad scientists, since they would'nt check for comprehensiblity, yet the video of Pluckrose (and partners) indicates that it is more of a identitary reasoning judging by what they tell us about their work process.

If QM refers to Quantum mechanics, isnt it rather confirming random will, instead of free will.

Anyway I'm not certain wether QM takes into account the mediation of their founding principles: the relativity regarding the observer and measurement.

To whom are you referring?

Edit: Nevermind I get it now.

Wether it's ethical or not seems contingent to me.
Rather I'd ask, if succeeding in this fraud discredits those studies, wiz discloses an epistological flaw - not to say the lack of any terminiology, emphaticially speaking.