A female named Emma Goldberg took to the pages of the (anti-Christian) New York Times and said Earth Science Has a Whiteness Problem.
Barely 10 percent of doctoral degrees in the geosciences go to recipients of color. The lack of diversity limits the quality of research, many scientists say.
Meaning, we suppose, some 9 out of 10 PhDs go to people of no color. Ordinarily, this would be taken to indicate that people of no color are on average better at geosciences than their more shaded cousins.
Goldberg instead opens her piece telling us of the horrors a female of color student had to endure at Columbia:
“You’d walk through the halls and it’s a lot of old white men,” Ms. Varuolo-Clarke said.
When it was Varuolo-Clarke’s right to see old of colors, instead.
In a commentary last week in Nature Geoscience, Kuheli Dutt, Lamont-Doherty’s assistant director for academic affairs and diversity, wrote that “a lack of diversity and inclusion is the single largest cultural problem facing the geosciences today.”
The unfortunately named Dutt did not say lack of of-colors was any sort of problem for the quality of geoscience work, but for the culture of geoscience departments. This is, of course, a circular argument. But logic is a specialty of old of no color men, a subject Dutt would not be expected to be familiar with.
Goldberg’s next sentence may be her most important: “The geosciences — which include the study of planet Earth, its oceans, its atmosphere and its interactions with human society — are among the least diverse across all fields of science.”
Who knew study of the planet Earth was a geoscience? This information has been kept hidden, no doubt because of the machinations of old of no color men.
Anyway, why is it important geosciences be “diverse”? Goldberg, to her credit, at least offers an answer, which most do not, taking it is sacrilege to express any hint of doubt about Diversity.
Goldberg says “…lack of representation in turn affects the quality and focus of earth science research, especially on climate change.” How so?
Lorelei Curtin, a fifth-year Ph.D. student at Columbia University, said her earth science classes could be enriched by a greater focus on nonwhite and Indigenous histories and voices, given that “Indigenous people have a unique connection to the land.”
One imagines the hair of the earnest indigenous populants always blows gently in the breezes of Mother Earth as they bring forth their connections to the land—to help them understand mathematical cloud parameterization schemes in coupled climate models better. Unlike old men of no color, indigenous populants sit at biodegradable abacuses and code to flute music.
On the other hand, given the track record of accurate climate predictions made by majority of no colors, maybe importing hordes of of-colors will improve things.
On the other other hand, maybe the real problem is Diversity after all. Take this clue from Goldberg:
Dr. Dutt, Lamont-Doherty’s diversity director, joined the Observatory 11 years ago as its only person of color in a leadership role. Since then she has led trainings for geoscientists on recognizing their implicit biases to foster a more racially inclusive environment.
Eleven years ago? Earth sciences has been on a downward course, and this could be the cause of part of it. Focusing on race, sex, and so on, and not focusing on physics has the effect—write this down—of taking the focus away from physics.
There, that should be worth a Nobel prize, no?
Here’s how Goldberg ended her article, her very words:
“Sometimes it’s an elephant in the room that I’m a woman of color,” Ms. Varuolo-Clarke said. “I’d rather we talk about it versus tiptoeing around it.”
Comparing women of color to elephants in the old days would have earned cries of “racism”. It is now a badge of honor, apparently.
Anyway, Dutt’s article in a science journal is “Race and racism in the geosciences”, which opens “Geoscientists in the United States are predominantly White. Progress towards diversification can only come with a concerted shift in mindsets and a deeper understanding of the complexities of race.”
Progress towards diversification. Progress, she said. Why is this progress?
People of colour tend to view race as an important part of their identity, whereas White people tend to view it as incidental.
Boy are whites evil for not realizing race is more important than geosciences to geoscientists.
On a personal level there are three things that White geoscientists can do immediately. First, they should separate their privilege as a White person from their identity as a good person.
There’s one thing I want Dutt to do, but since this is a family blog, I can’t print what that is.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here
There is a known cure for left-wing zealotry. This is the only known cure, unfortunately. “Please stand against the wall and wait for the flash.”
The Left has announced its intentions to destroy us and un-make our culture. Everything they do is merely strategy & tactics towards that end. They are our enemies, and they want us all dead.
“Meaning, we suppose, some 9 out of 10 PhDs go to people of no color”
From the available figures, 31% of PhD awards in the USA go to Hispanic, Black ,Asian and other or mixed race recipients..
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_svc.pdf
” “Indigenous people have a unique connection to the land.””
This is how that went down at the “university” of Cape Town….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
Most elephants are gray, although there are rumors about the existence of white and pink varieties.
Curious that white is a mixture of all color wavelengths and that the individual colors of the spectrum are the least diverse in wavelength. And that color is a matter of interpretation and not a physical trait.
If there are not enough geoscientists of color, does anyone suggest this might be due to a lack of interest in geoscience in some quarters? Should we force such folks into these professions? (They are obviously not being excluded; cf. Ms Dutt or the 31%) Perhaps there should be a draft.
I didn’t see where Dutt’s background was identified in the article. I’m going to assume, given her title reflects more-or-less a Human Resources area, that her training is not in a “hard science” field. I’m going to further assume her ability to identify good or bad scientific research is severely limited as a result of her lack of background in that area. Her opinion as to how a scientific field of study could be improved is, therefore, of little value.
P.S. She also appears to be a racisit, sexist, -phobe of some sort…
“I didn’t see where Dutt’s background was identified in the article. I’m going to assume, given her title reflects more-or-less a Human Resources area, that her training is not in a “hard science” field.”
“Dr. Kuheli Dutt is the Assistant Director for Academic Affairs and Diversity at Lamont, and serves as Lamont’s Diversity Officer. Dr. Dutt has a PhD in public policy, and extensive experience developing diversity and inclusion initiatives and programs. ”
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/user/kdutt
“Indigenous people have a unique connection to the land.” Of course. You have to have land to clear and build those giant casinos.
Viewed through the lens of multiple groups this is a group asking for a larger fraction of the pie. One part that doesn’t fit is the push to say that it something other than a grab, rather it is a claim for legitimacy under the old rules. Of course those rules have to change or they don’t get the desired result.
We are being asked to pretend that a deer is a horse.
When the Choctaw first encountered horses, they had no word for them. But they did have words like issa abd ubah for concepts like “deer” and “large.” So they coined a new term subah, which meant “sorta like a deer, only bigger.”
“Sometimes it’s an elephant in the room that I’m a woman of color,”
And it never occurs to her that no professional in the field really cares what sex or color she is? So long as she’s qualified, what difference does it make?
“People of colour tend to view race as an important part of their identity, whereas White people tend to view it as incidental.”
On the occasion it rises to the level of “incidental”.