Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science Technology

'Science Must Clean Up Its Act' (scientificamerican.com) 685

Our science community still struggles with diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including systemic bias, harassment, and discrimination among other things, writes Heather Metcalf, mathematician, computer scientist, social scientist, and also the director of research for the Association for Women in Science. From her piece, in which she has shared both personal anecdotes and general examples, for the Scientific American: [...] Take the recent March for Science. Nearly two weeks ago, scientists and science supporters gathered in Washington, D.C, and around the globe to stand up for "robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity" and put forth a vision of science that "serves the interests of all humans, not just those in power." However, in its attempts to remain apolitical and objective, the march focused primarily on funding and communication aspects of its mission while losing sight of the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged. [...] In the early days of its organizing, the march offered up a strong statement of solidarity acknowledging the complacency with which the scientific community as a whole has handled issues that primarily impact marginalized communities: "many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent -- attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone." This messaging was removed and replaced after much pushback, largely from white men, about the need to remain apolitical and objective. These debates resulted in many women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ scientists, and their allies feeling ostracized and even receiving disrespectful and hateful messages about their place in science generally and in M4S specifically. Rather than standing up for a science that is available to everyone, these conversations and the march itself merely served represent an exclusionary science by reinforcing longstanding, divisive norms within the scientific community, all in the name of objectivity..
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Science Must Clean Up Its Act'

Comments Filter:
  • stand up for "robustly funded ..."

    A dog-whistle for "funded by taxes"...

    Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:42AM (#54463289)

      Exactly. The whole SJW agenda is that people want to get "funded" without having to get a real job.

    • by quintus_horatius ( 1119995 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:10PM (#54463543) Homepage

      Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.

      Some socially valuable things aren't profitable, some profitable things aren't socially valuable. Most individuals would never decide, or could never afford, to take on a socially valuable project that loses money, which is why we have governments to do them.

      • Some socially valuable things aren't profitable

        Name one. All things are potentially profitable. There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...

        Also another side question, what does "socially valuable" have to do with science anyway? I think there is the root of your problem, and the problem of the current scientific community. Science is about building tools and fostering an understanding of an issue, without judgment or preconception. I

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@world3QUOTE.net minus punct> on Monday May 22, 2017 @01:08PM (#54464039) Homepage Journal

          There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...

          The initial work on space was very, very expensive and had very low returns. It may well have been done by commercial entities eventually and over a much longer period of time, but then we wouldn't be enjoying all the benefits of it today. No satellites, for example.

          It's the same with a lot of medical research. The basic, risky stuff gets done by publicly funded institutions like universities, and then commercialized when there is a clear way to profit from it. Again, you could argue that if we simply waited the market would do that research, but then we would still be dying of stuff that can be easily cured today.

        • by Zumbs ( 1241138 )

          Some socially valuable things aren't profitable

          Name one.

          New antibiotics. As described on wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

          Since 2009, only 2 new antibiotics were approved in the United States. The number of new antibiotics approved for marketing per year declines continuously.

          The reason is simple: Existing antibiotics have been used to such a degree that there are more and more bacteria that can resist exisiting antibiotica. Thus, new antibiotica must be held in reserve to fight the bacteria that shrugs off current antibiotics, implying that the new antibiotica is not going to be used much. The cost of researching and clearing the new antibiotica does not get any cheaper, so we have a situation where it is expensive to research and the

  • by plague911 ( 1292006 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:26AM (#54463167)
    This is just a rant/op-ed.....at best
    • by sl3xd ( 111641 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:37AM (#54463251) Journal

      Agreed. The scientific community does have issues of its own to address (and there are many).

      However, this article reads along the lines of "I consider myself part of a community, and my community should think just like I do, and support the causes I want them to."

      The author seems to be trying to 'shame' those who feel that "That has nothing to do with me, I feel no need to support it."

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:17PM (#54463605) Journal
      ...and at worst it is guilty of what it sets out to campaign against because it dismisses the idea that scientists should "remain apolitical and objective" as coming from "white men". This a violation of the basic rule of science that you consider ideas on their merits not based on who said them. Ironically it is also a textbook example of racism and sexism because it suggests we value an idea less because of the race and gender of the people suggesting it.

      Her willingness to put her own personal beliefs before scientific values shows a complete lack of objectivity, This, together with her openly racist and sexist rant, does suggest that she might actually have a point though. This sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable for someone calling themselves a scientist and so if science is going to clean up its act giving her an education in basic scientific principles would be a good place to start.
  • by clonehappy ( 655530 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:27AM (#54463171)

    There's more signalling going on in this one summary than every stoplight in Manhattan.

    • Re:How Virtuous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:40AM (#54463271) Journal

      Yeah, I was about to shout "Bingo!" There's a difference between political activism and studying the world; there's also a difference between voluntary support, and compelled groupthink.

      Scientists aren't known for going along with compelled groupthink, especially as disproving groupthink can make their career.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Scientists aren't known for going along with compelled groupthink

        I take it, you've never read or taken a course in conservation biology. The political group think is strong with them.

      • Re:How Virtuous (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:20PM (#54463625) Homepage

        Similarly, this felt like a lecture to scientists and those who associate with them. The lesson appeared to be "searching for answers is not enough. You must find the answers that support this specific agenda, otherwise your science is deficient." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

        The responsibility is on the individual that wants to change these things to change them through their presence, their effort, and ultimately their exemplary contribution. Changing people's minds is that easy.

        Unfortunately, people who are consumed with gender politics, panning for "microaggressions," and warrioring for socialish justiceness will never have the time to be a significant contributions to actual science that make a difference where it really matters. Instead they seek to make up artificial reasons why those who actually do scientific work and those that fund that work should be ashamed of themselves and their science. They want to change science into a slave to their political agenda. Circumventing the method that makes it science and enforcing a strict set of rules that ensure the output of any science meets their predetermined acceptability matrix.

        In other words, these people think that science, just like language and behavior, should be beholden to their politics and nothing else. I can't think of anything more destructive to real science than than focusing on a political agenda first and then organizing science around it afterward.

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:30AM (#54463185) Homepage Journal

    An interesting hypothesis. Has it been put to the test?

  • Riiight... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:32AM (#54463201)

    Science is facing a raft of politically-motivated studies, rigged or suppressed medical trials, false or irreproducible results are rampant. But the big problem is "lack of diversity"??

            I would think if you demanded rigor and accountability for the actual science part of the job, you wouldn't have to worry too much about who was doing the work.

    Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.

    • by slew ( 2918 )

      Science is facing a raft of politically-motivated studies, rigged or suppressed medical trials, false or irreproducible results are rampant. But the big problem is "lack of diversity"??

      I would think if you demanded rigor and accountability for the actual science part of the job, you wouldn't have to worry too much about who was doing the work.

      Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.

      If this was any other endeavor, people would be talking about a boycott... Apparently science is deemed important enough not to boycott of organizations that didn't tow the PC line. Maybe there is hope for rationality after all (or did I speak too soon)...

    • Re:Riiight... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:46AM (#54463317) Journal

      ...and that's why "science" as a thing is rapidly losing credibility.

      The SJW's have aggressively politicized everything: it's no longer about qualifications, it's about identity politics....and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

        The SJW's have aggressively politicized everything: it's no longer about qualifications, it's about identity politics....and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

        Well, don't let your guard down.

        Only a couple of short decades ago, you'd have never even heard in public, much less on any relative scale...the protests and bitching by the SJW types....but it is growing.

        I have been shocked in seeing some of the rhetoric coming from the extreme left, and how much of it is sticking and being promoted in m

    • Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.

      And Starbucks. Leave me alone to drink my coffee in peace.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:34AM (#54463221)

    I've long held that the scientific community needs to take better care of its equipment. Running multiple experiments with unclean equipment will just lead to shoddy science! Controversial, I know, but there you have it!
    I agree with the article that women would be great for these positions and would, in fact, clean up science's act. More power to'em!

  • Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zifn4b ( 1040588 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:36AM (#54463231)

    In the three months leading up to the March for Science and in the days since, many in the scientific community engaged in heated debates about how political science and the march should be, especially around social justice issues. In the early days of its organizing, the march offered up a strong statement of solidarity acknowledging the complacency with which the scientific community as a whole has handled issues that primarily impact marginalized communities: “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically—and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone.”

    (Facepalm) I can't think of the words to describe how disgusting this is that some group of people would mix science and politics. The only point at which science might mix with politics is if politics is in opposition to science for political reasons. But this is different. This is pulling political issues into the scientific realm and that's just absolutely absurd and discredits science. NO NO NO. LGBT rights have NOTHING to do with science. Mass shootings have nothing to do with science. There is a reason why scientists are usually not politicians and vice versa.

  • by Edweirdo ( 449577 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:36AM (#54463233)

    I've read the article twice, but I still think I'm reading it wrong. Does he say that science should be more objective and apolitical, then complain that it is object and apolitical?

  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:36AM (#54463237)

    Whiny social justice warrior demands science be primarily a political tool for her pet causes, complains more when told science is supposed to be apolitical about facts and reproducible experiments - and can't resist implying that those things are bad because she was told so by scary 'old white men'.

    Maybe Heather Metcalf should shut the hell up and spend some time thinking about why the 'old white men' are right and she's a complete idiot. Scientific American does itself a disservice by letting her post this crap under their banner, blog page or not.

    Any issue you may see with the sex ratio of scientists or treatment scientists tend to receive based on sex or gender, whether they're famous or toiling in obscurity, or sex or gender issues in the community at large... has nothing to do with whether or not science should a political arena. It should not. Science seeks facts and understanding, what we do with that is the arena of politics.

    • Rags like Scientific American and National Geographic have over the past few years lost the reason people loved them - because they were objective, and 'above the fray,' and have instead become political mouthpieces... In the early twentieth century the Editor of National Geographic declared that his magazine would be 'apolitical' and apart from momentary bias -- but in the last few years that principle has been ditched, due to so many reporter types going through a lengthy indoctrination process that puts
    • by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @01:29PM (#54464205) Homepage

      Her target is not you, me, or even scientists that do sciency stuff.

      Her target is those that fund science. Just like politically correct speech is designed to circumvent free thought by proscribing what can be said, this is an attempt to limit and control what science is done, and why it is done, by shaping the viewpoints of those that fund it.

      Welcome to the new Gestapo. They will cleanse you of all doubleplusungood thoughts and actions.

      • >Welcome to the new Gestapo.

        I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough I can tell you this is not the first time since WWII that we've had wannabe 'thought police' gain political influence. It comes and goes to varying degrees on what seem to be decade-long cycles.

        The important thing that we never seem to learn as a society is that the more you tolerate these fools early on, the harder it is to stop them later on when they've gained positions of power - and the greater the return swing on the pend

  • What the ***** (Score:5, Informative)

    by Notabadguy ( 961343 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:44AM (#54463305)

    I can't be the only one extremely disappointed with this article.

    The subject "Science Needs to Clean Up Its Act" was so promising - and then its about how the scientific community needs to be more PC - more diversified - more accepting of participating in peoples' personal self-image and validating them - less harassment.

    Science *does* need to clean up its act. It needs to harass scientists who publish nonsense that can't be replicated. It needs to purge administrative non-sense that clouds the pursuit of truth. It needs to blacklist scientists who publish fraud, and those who use fake contact information to peer-review their own research.

    Instead of trying to broaden scientific pursuit to LGBTXYZ by making scientists acknowledge their white cis privilege and beg forgiveness, science needs to bleach its festering sores clean of festering disease, clinically diagnose and treat the cancerous tumors in its ranks, and make science EQUALLY appealing to everyone of any sex, race, creed, or religion who wants to pursue scientific achievement absent this horrific PC attitude.

    • the scientific community needs to be more PC

      And she doesn't go into much detail about how exactly it's supposed to go about doing that, but "science" has been open to all for the entirety of its existence, and hasn't produced the outcome she liked. I have a sneaking suspicion that her fix will be one set of standards to accept scientific evidence from despicable white men and another standard for everybody else.

  • by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:46AM (#54463313)

    ...have nothing to do with science. They have everything to do with the politicization of science, which turns science into something else.

  • by Tyr07 ( 2300912 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:47AM (#54463321) Homepage

    Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Special interest groups: Yeah but woman and minorities and not white men and political correctness, how are you supporting that?

    Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Special interest groups: Yeah I don't see how you're supporting our agenda on equal rights for human behavior etc.

    Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Special interest groups: Science is discriminating against us! Down with "their" science.

    • You're attacking a strawman by being too literal. The summary is explicitly clear in the first line that the critique is against the "science community", not the concept of science itself. While the process of science itself is neutral, it is perfectly possible for scientists and scientific institutions to be biased.
      • by Tyr07 ( 2300912 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:08PM (#54463523) Homepage

        No I'm not, rtfa.
        "many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically—and generally continues to support discrimination.

        "SCIENCE HAS HISTORICALLY -- AND GENERALLY CONTINUES TO SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION.

        It didn't refer to the scientific community, it implies that science itself, the process of science, should be supporting political issues. The articles DOES NOT state "Accurate, tested, and scientific discovery properly able to be reproduced, is ignored if it isn't done by a white male"

        You're talking about bias in a scientific community because the SCIENTIFIC E.G a community about SCIENCE (Which goes back to my literal term of SCIENCE) isn't discussing NON SCIENCE things like immigration policy etc.

        What, did you hear the word strawman somewhere and just couldn't help yourself but to try and find a place to use it?
        If anything it's quite the opposite.

  • Science should be about reproduceable results. Not the agenda of the "scientists".

  • Science is a process. It is a pear-reviewed process. It does not care who does or not does it.

    Scientists OTOH are people and that means they can decide if they want to be assholes or not. That is greatly a political discussion.
    Just as we should not mix religion with politics, we should not mix science with politics.

    Now if you want to do a scientific investigation about scientists, please go ahead and give ne some science with proof as to why changing things would be better, because for all I know it could b

  • If you try to give everyone equal chances, independent of their race, gender, sexual preference, planet of origin, you name it, you'll have no bigger supporter than me.

    If you want to enforce quotas for equal number of $identification_attribute, independent of their ability to perform whatever has to be done, you'll have no bigger enemy.

    Science is not a publicity contest. What it comes down to is whether someone can do it or can't do it. Hey, thinking about it, that's how it is in all fields. And I cannot pu

  • This messaging was removed and replaced after much pushback, largely from white men, about the need to remain apolitical and objective....

    So it's mainly white men who want science to remain scientific, while rejecting the push to make science political; by implication, it's mainly non-white, non-men that want to politicize science.

    It is the white men that are showing wisdom that appears to be severely lacking in the other groups. It is not the place of science to push for any social policy. It is the place of science to predict and/or show the results of various social policies (to the extent that science is even capable of doing so). It i

  • mass shootings are scientific issues.

    No. No. No. NO. NO NO!!!! Studies can tell you the chances of being killed by a gun or how common it is in different parts of the world or what changes with mental health or just generally give you a picture of what particular laws have in effect. That does not tell you anything else!

    It doesn't tell you what to do if people view those dangers worth it. It doesn't tell you if owning a gun should be a right or not. It doesn't tell you what it means to have a right of self defense. It doesn't tell you what hap

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:03PM (#54463471)

    addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged

    Take Gender Dysphoria as an example. It is roughly just a mental state where one feels that one's secondary sexual characteristics don't conform to one's feelings about which gender you are. It is essentially a mental illness. That's all it really is. Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion? Unlikely...

    This is politics, plain and simple. Once you understand that, everything is easier to understand. There is no political push for real, objective science because the cold truths about the universe would "trigger" every political faction in modern politics at some point, everywhere from Communists, to anarchists and in between.

    • Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion?

      Just an opinion? What? I don't know what you've been reading, but why don't you give this [nyu.edu] a skim and then maybe you can speak a little more sensibly on the topic.

  • This is bait. (Score:5, Informative)

    by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:04PM (#54463491)

    the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged.

    I'm hitting that point where "the privleged" is just an overused buzzword.

    "many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent --

    • attacks on black and brown lives,
    • oil pipelines through indigenous lands,
    • sexual harassment and assault,
    • ADA access in our communities,
    • immigration policy,
    • lack of clean water in several cities across the country,
    • poverty wages,
    • LGBTQIA rights,
    • and mass shootings, are scientific issues

    . . . ADA access isn't really a scientific issue. It's political. And one that has largely been won in support for the disabled. ADA compliance is pretty damn strict and if anyone finds non-compliance they can sue for thousands to millions. It's a settled issue.

    Clean water is likewise pretty settled. We need it. The issues in Michigan are economic ones. The science is pretty clear: Lead fucks you up.

    LGBBQWTF rights are most certainly a political issue, not a scientific one. Figuring out if furries are born with it or have been brainwashed by cartoons is a question for science. What to do about it is a matter of politics.

    And that's the crux here. Science INFORMS and GUIDES policy. Science doesn't say SQUAT about what to do with immigrants. It can cut through the lies and bullshit and point out the facts and truth of the matter... but not what we ought to do about it. Now, obviously if a proposed solution or policy is argued on points that are simply shown to be false thanks to scientific research, then that's a bad policy. But if you go to sociology 101, chapter 7 isn't "how to fix race issues".

    Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination.

    WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.

    pushback, largely from white men,

    Way to be sexist and racist about it.

    all in the name of objectivity.

    . . . YES. If science and scientists can't remain objective and allow bias to taint the results then the science is BAD. And that will cause everyone to discard your findings.

    • Re: This is bait. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @01:07PM (#54464027) Journal

      WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.

      Scientists, for at least half a century, were really big on social darwinism. That meant the scientific community would just assume black people were dumber, or Poles were naturally servile or whatever based on speculation. If there were any doubts, you could always cite some social scientist who did a study to 'prove' it. WW2 ended all that, but you can still see remnants with books like "The Bell Curve" or James Watson's fairly recent racist comments.

      Science is hard, doing good science is harder (we can see this because of numerous mistakes in scientific papers), and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all. Because of this, there is a lot of space where we don't clearly know the answer, but unscrupulous people can take advantage of this and make it look like the science supports their agenda. It's hard to say, "We don't know" and it's hard to hear it.

  • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:04PM (#54463493) Homepage Journal

    The replication crisis is present in every field. Publish or perish creates fucked up incentives that guarantee shit science.

    Whatever this bint is whining about is not a real problem, at least not at the importance and scale that she claims it is. If she wanted people to take systemic bias seriously, she should clean her own house first. The social sciences are little more than rationalization factories for fringe political ideologies. If you didn't talk like an activist zealot, maybe you would have some credibility, and people wouldn't balk at being associated with you.

    Of course, for these activists, that is a feature, not a bug. They claim to speak for all women and minorities, people want nothing to do with them, they then use that as evidence that people want nothing to do with all women and minorities. It's a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing delusion.

  • ..diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including systemic bias, harassment, and discrimination..

    These are not 'science community' issues; they are HUMAN RACE issues. This crap goes on all over the world, to varying degrees, in all areas of our so-called 'civilization', and they won't be solved through legislation (laws and regulations just drive attitudes underground) or much through discussion (ironically, it all gets paid 'lip service' and nothing really gets done). These issues will either be solved by humans evolving away from it all -- or it won't. Meanwhile it's all a continual struggle that ap

  • scientist? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:19PM (#54463619)

    Heather Metcalf, mathematician, computer scientist, social scientist, and also the director of research for the Association for Women in Science.

    Scientists have scientific results and publish them; if you check Metcalf's scientific publication record, it's pretty much non-existent.

    Science should "clean up its act" by making it clear that people like that are not scientists, don't speak for scientists, and aren't welcome in the scientific community.

  • Sure thing, psychos (Score:4, Informative)

    by okaynow ( 4969191 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:48PM (#54463865)

    Because departments run by LGBTQ and similarly "disadvantaged" people produce such high levels of scholarship:

    http://www.skeptic.com/reading... [skeptic.com]

    That white men should just quit- just get out of the way of people of color, whom they are repressing :

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/... [dailywire.com]

    Look in a money and resource limited environment, we have to make hard decisions about what and who is important and what and who is not:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Because feminists have sooo much to offer science, so much keen insight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    That it would be a pity to let the entire social justice left be excluded merely on the basis of their inability, their differently abledness:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Like the Revivvalism of the turn of the century and Scientology today, social justice is a literal cult. Unfortunately it's a cult that threatens the rational and scientific basis of Western civilization and if left unchecked, which it largely has been, will reduce the West to Feminist Lysenkoism and a and ethnic and gender-based totalitarianism.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... [smithsonianmag.com]

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L... [rationalwiki.org]

    The time for passivity and tolerance in the face of civilization-deconstructing psychosis is past. It's civilization or it's the race hatred, gender-cidal cult of social justice. It won't be both. I know I have re-engineered my career to effect the total, permanent and irreversible extermination of this disease and I enjoin anyone of good will- man woman white black brown gay or straight- to join me.

  • Stop offering opinions on Politics, Economics, and Religion and STOP issuing doomsday statements in an attempt to garner attention. If you're wrong, which inevitably we are often slightly mistaken, 100% of your research will be thrown out for one bad fact.

    Example: It's impossible to even have a rational discussion about global warming anymore.
  • by gantry ( 180560 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @02:37PM (#54464715)

    Dr Piper Harron, writing [ams.org] on the AMS "Inclusion/Exclusion" blog, informs us:

    "If you are a white cis man you almost certainly should resign from your position of power."

    A reply [ams.org] from an anonymous University mathematician serves equally well as a reply to Dr Heather Metcalf.

    "We are all painfully aware of the inequalities in faculty composition and trying hard to fix it. *Every* math department I know of is trying really hard to hire every qualified minority and female applicant out there (and by qualified I mean: a *very* generous ballpark within the hiring range of each department). The real problem is that there are not enough such candidates, and most departments end up making offers to the same few that are available in the market each year. By the way, our departments are aware of the problem, and so are our Deans and higher administration. In my experience, they are all very supportive of us hiring under-represented minorities, even offering additional positions when such opportunities occur, *as long as we conform with the laws*, and as long as the hire is within the 'generous ballpark'."

    In other words, departments are willing to lower the standards for minority and female candidates, by a "*very* generous ballpark", with the consent of the University administration; but they are still unable to find sufficient candidates.

    It is no wonder that there is "pushback" from white men; or that women and minorities are treated with suspicion as having benefitted from "affirmative action".

  • by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @08:24PM (#54466955)

    And here I thought this would be an article about the sorry state of science today, ignorance of basic statistical principles, pretending science can answer questions it can't, pretending results prove things they don't, inability to replicate results and structural lack of attempts to replicate results (doesn't get you published), etc.

    Instead, more SJW meta-issues. Cleaning up its act apparently has nothing to do with its actual act.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.

Working...