remove smaller

indiana251110.md

@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ Note: Take, for example, peer review. I've written extensively about this, and I
 Note: Moreover, trying to change the rules and procedures to make them _more_ objective is laudable, but cannot help but introduce new areas in which objectivity is in question. Ultimately, as Young argues, the goal should be not to exclude subjectivity or "personal values" from decision-making, but rather to make that subjectivity and those personal values fully part of the decision-making process itself, as she notes that these values are "inevitably and properly part of what decisionmaking is about." So rather than trying to make peer review more bias-free, what if we were instead to embrace its deeply political nature, to make it more transparent and participatory, and to ask authors and reviewers alike to surface and contend with their values as a part of the process?
 
 
-> <smaller>“Decisions and actions will be evaluated less according to <span style="color:red">whether they are right or just</span> than according to their legal validity, that is, whether they are consistent with the rules and follow the appropriate procedures.” (Young 77)</smaller>
+> “Decisions and actions will be evaluated less according to <span style="color:red">whether they are right or just</span> than according to their legal validity, that is, whether they are consistent with the rules and follow the appropriate procedures.” (Young 77)
 
 Note: Similarly, we might think of the ways that tenure and promotion processes and policies are implemented. These structures have been designed to protect candidates from the personal whims or animus of administrators as cases move through the approval hierarchy. And yet that bureaucracy has the potential to interfere with justice in its requirement that all cases be treated identically. As Young notes of the gap between bureaucracy and truly democratic collective action, "Decisions and actions will be evaluated less according to whether they are right or just than according to their legal validity, that is, whether they are consistent with the rules and follow the appropriate procedures." This is encoded in the appeals process for promotion and tenure denials at many institutions, where the acceptable range of inquiry is restricted to whether the process was conducted in accordance with the rules, rather than whether the final determination was just, much less whether the process as constituted was capable of producing a just result.