We’ve just finished more than a week discussing the progression of the politicization (pozzing) of science.
There are the increasing number of academic departments that require Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) oaths for hiring and promotion. These had the direct effects, at least in the UC system, of eliminating whites from contention completely, at least in some departments.
There is the direct injection of politics into science, as with the National Academy of Sciences publishing a paper that used the asinine anti-Reality phrase “sex assigned at birth”. Hundreds of years of accumulation of knowledge gutted in four words.
Grade manipulation is happening and being advocated, in order to increase the number of ladies and of color people in STEM fields. SAT and other test scores are being jettisoned, as are other truly (or mostly) objective measures of performance.
We saw that the University of Michigan has, and for some time now, been inserting zampolit into every department. This will ensure the DIE gods are properly worshiped, and that troublemakers who still care about Truth and Reality will be rooted out.
And we also saw the raw hatred of of-no-color people in the sciences. Prominent individuals in well known journals are openly calling for a reduction of whites, and in particular of white men, and to a lesser extent Asians. DIE has become the goal, the sciences themselves fade.
There are many other things. For instance, a call in BMJ to police pronouns. Colleges in Ireland are creating professorships for women only. “The posts were approved by a 10-member international assessment panel with gender equality expertise,” said the news report. Gender equality expertise? The ladies hired are sure to announce that all mathematical equations will be replaced by discussions of their feelings.
What can we make of this?
The UC idea, which has a pseudo-quantification of DIE ardor is designed to make the process of of-color purges appear scientific. This is so when the inevitable lawsuit comesthey have some sort of defense. They can’t just say “We’re purging whites” or Asians. Don’t forget that Harvard using similar arguments won its case against Asians who resented being purged. The UC cases, when they come, will likewise be won. Just think who the judges will be!
This points to the larger effect. The negative quality feedback mentioned earlier.
Science is far from dead. There are still a lot of whites and Asians in tenured positions. It will be tough to root them all out, especially those nearest retirement. Promotions can and will be withheld, though. Most WAMs (whites and Asian males) who make it to Associate will probably stick it out, even if they never do make Full professors.
Not every of-color or politically appointed lady is unqualified, of course, though by design and direct argument, many are less qualified than the WAMs going up against them. So quality will decrease: slowly at first, as we’ve seen, and then accelerating toward the end, as things do. We are just seeing the first effects of acceleration now, which is still why many departments seem to be fine.
Don’t forget that positions of authority, such as grant award and promotion committees, will be stacked with non- and anti-WAMs. There will therefore come increasing calls for money to flow to increase DIE and not to increase quality. We could see, as we already see in California for corporate board members, requirements that every grant application have a fixed percentage of non-WAMs. This will certainly happen at the NIH and NSF levels, who only now “encourage” non-WAMs. This will exacerbate the negative effects.
This will happen not only with money, but with awards, too. The non-diverse nature of Fields medals and Nobel and lesser prizes has been noted. Some of these are more susceptible to politicking than others. The first lesbian Black transwoman Nobel prize winner will be under at least the suspicion her work on quantum color equality theory isn’t that good.
Well, so what. What can we do about it?
Not much. Not within the existing system. The people in power are either cowards or bow in earnest to DIE ideology. Although the only real muscle the left has at the moment is screeching, it is devastatingly effective against soy-fed Administrators. All these authorities had to do is say “No”, but they never could. Cowards everywhere.
The only other option if we want to save the real knowledge we have learned (and not only in the sciences) is to do this ourselves.
We have to find a way to reinvent the university. We’ve discussed this many times, but with little enthusiasm. I’m telling you: you had better get enthusiastic, but quick.
The real crisis does not yet seem to be upon us. Most places operate as they always have. The old ways have not been entirely purged. It still looks normal. The lunatics are still on the fringe—but they have the wind at their backs.
By the time the crisis is hot, it will be too late to do anything. Or, rather, the efforts toward restoration will be that much more difficult.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here
Some ladies have better college GPAs than the gentlemen, even in STEM disciplines. They should be encouraged. But not under false pretenses.
Gary – The better grades of women than men in STEM disciplines is at least 80% false pretenses. Of course, black women usually perform better in schools than black men, if for no other reason than they are more likely to show up to class and perhaps do some of the work. (Wow, being exposed to DC for over a decade taught me so much.)
“Well, so what. What can we do about it?
Not much. Not within the existing system.”
Withhold assent. Don’t argue with junk science that’s DIEd. Contempt, ridicule, and disengagement are my preferred approaches.
Pointing out the errors in the hope of seeing a change is a lost cause. Two easy examples come to mind: (1) If people are equal then it shouldn’t matter who’s on the faculty, yet the argument is that people of color are needed to improve the quality or research. And we are back on the (animal) farm where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. (2) If men can be women, then the categories have no meaning. But those arguments will not get you far, perhaps to the door then thrown down the stairs.
Ridicule seems better to me. And that can be done using allegory which provides some protection from the SJW mobs.
Leo: Agreed. Ridicule is something these people are incapable of handling. Since this is an emotional battle and he/she/it who emotes the best wins.
At this point, I think the car is over the cliff and catching air. It’s not going to turn out well. If a small number of people can preserve reality, there may be a chance after the ugly passes. If not, nature will educate and it will be long and brutal. Nature doesn’t care about gender vs sex, DIE or any of that. Nature is tough and teaches hard lessons. However, humans never seem to learn, so we go through this over and over. I suspect DIE or something similar wiped out the Aztecs and Incas. It’s sad, but it really never changes.
@McChuck,
Re: 80% false pretenses. Not in the data I have for a particular state university. The ladies do quite well there without special considerations. The mileage at other institutions will vary and I make no claims about it. My point is that the broad brush doesn’t do justice to every individual even if it paints some accurately. Individuals who are talented, work hard, and earn a spot on the roster should not be smeared. In a way, that smearing is an extension of early prejudices that excluded the talented and hard-working because they didn’t fit an image. Granted, the special considerations go too far, so can’t we get it right somewhere in between?
@ McChuck,
Sadly, no, we can’t. We don’t know enough and are too sure of ourselves, whether DIE hards or DIE hard sceptics. Ideally, we would make strict standards known as objectively as we can and let the chips fall where they may. That’s not possible, it seems to me, given the current mass hysteria gripping us (and not just the West).
The problem with the hypothesis above is that junk science tainted by political agendas has been happening since the very beginnings of science. The Victorians, the Nazis, the Commies, the Progs, the Luddites, the Libtards, the Churches, the Alarmistas, and almost every ridiculous sect or cult out there have pozzed science like a cheap ______.
Even the High Priests of Normal Science who cling to the Traditional Methods are pozz johns.
Yet somehow and in some mysterious way, science seems to stumble forward. Satellites, smartphones, medicine that works, shoes that fit, etc. magically appear in the marketplace. Nobody knows where they come from, much less how they work, but there they are.
Your Average Professor Joe or Josephine at State U. may be dumb as an ox, but they really don’t matter. Science does not rely on hammerheads. Academia could mass croak tomorrow and disappear into dust, but science, Real Science, will march on unaffected by it.
What do we need universities for anyway? The autodidact has unprecedented access to information and ability to make his thoughts available to the public. So what’s the plan? A non-pozzed grant-making institution? A journal? A new system of apprenticeship for the mental trades?