5 ms·

Setting aside how completely made up this sounds, how could that possibly be what "shattered" credibility in mainstream science for you?

ETH_start 2y ago
That ideology is being masqueraded science. That these individuals are abusing their scientific authority in such a flagrant way. Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is not "white supremacist ideology". And even if you believe it is, and that the SCOTUS — which ruled that DEI admission requirements at Ivy League universities discriminated against Asian applicants — is part of this white supremacist conspiracy, you should not be making that case in a scientific journal as if your scientific expertise has anything to do with that opinion. It reminds me of when 1,000 "medical professionals" wrote an open letter saying that protests against lockdowns were a public health threat, but that protests promoting the BLM narrative were not: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette... “However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” It sounds like right-wing hyperbole until you actually read their own words.
- defrost 2y ago
  > That ideology is being masqueraded science. It's a letter to the editor .. it's not being "masqueraded as science", it is openly declared as an opinion held by some scientists. Scientists are not homogenuous in opinion, there is a long history of differing opinions in letters to editors in science journals. Are you * ignorant of this, or * delibrately misframing it? > That these individuals are abusing their scientific authority in such a flagrant way. Again, it's a letter to the editor expressing the opinion of some. The horse you've climbed up upon here appears quite high. > Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is not "white supremacist ideology". ^F "white supremacist" in https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq4733 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq4733 and the only use of the phrase is: The current political climate is tremendously hostile for BIPOC scientists. [..] .. institutions must resist by taking legal action against civil liberty violations that result from anti-DEI directives. .. As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leadership must take urgent action to protect and support all members of our diverse scientific community. As is clear to native english as a first language readers, that does not state that "Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is white supremacist ideology". You have badly paraphrased an assertion that "anti-DEI directives" (those directives stronger than simple removal) are resulting in civil liberty violations (ie. the racists feel emboldened). The only thing I see here is an opinion piece expressed in a letter to the editor and whole lot of puffery, lambast, and smoke in response.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    Publishing in Science — a premier scientific journal — carries significant weight. When STEM PhDs use this platform for political advocacy, it misleads the public into assuming scientific consensus on divisive issues. It undermines trust in science which is already facing a crisis in legitimacy. The letter states: "As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leadership must take urgent action." This clearly implies a link between anti-DEI efforts and white supremacy. This is an inflammatory leap, and tying it to their PhDs, let alone to Science, disgraces the scientific establishment. And your claim that this doesn't refer to anti-DEI efforts is disingenuous. There is no other phenomenon at play that the alleged "recodification of white supremacy philosophies" could be referring to. The letter is a reaction to the anti-DEI program and is plainly implying that this program amounts to recodification of white supremacy philosophies. They’re using their credentials as a bully pulpit to push a narrow ideological viewpoint. It’s dogmatic and unethical and the decision by Science to give this a platform further undermines the credibility of the scientific establishment. Racial affinity groups promote segregation, clashing with the color-blind foundation of modern science. They are indefensible, and attempts to legitimize them by labeling critics as white supremacists are intellectually dishonest to a shameless extreme. Claiming that disallowing these racial-identity groups in taxpayer funded institutions amounts to promoting civil liberties violations by emboldening racists is just more totally baseless and inflammatory smear tactics to maintain programs that reject colorblindness and thereby promote racism. While they keep conjuring up the racist right-wing boogeyman, actual codified racism — ruled on by the Supreme Court — pervades academia. Racial affinity groups, propped up by this broader racial privilege ideology, have fueled discrimination across academia, where applicants are judged heavily by race. Yet these ideologues have the gall to claim the real threat is to so-called disadvantaged groups. It’s a sham, and the evidence proves it. You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it. Nonsense. I have done no such thing. Please don't lie and misrepresent, that's simply dishonest. You're overstating the importance of a letter to the editor that expresses an opinion. So overstating that importance it's both comical and reflects poorly on yourself and your credibility in making any statements about science.

ETH_start 2y ago

That ideology is being masqueraded science. That these individuals are abusing their scientific authority in such a flagrant way. Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is not "white supremacist ideology". And even if you believe it is, and that the SCOTUS — which ruled that DEI admission requirements at Ivy League universities discriminated against Asian applicants — is part of this white supremacist conspiracy, you should not be making that case in a scientific journal as if your scientific expertise has anything to do with that opinion. It reminds me of when 1,000 "medical professionals" wrote an open letter saying that protests against lockdowns were a public health threat, but that protests promoting the BLM narrative were not: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette... “However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” It sounds like right-wing hyperbole until you actually read their own words.

defrost 2y ago
> That ideology is being masqueraded science. It's a letter to the editor .. it's not being "masqueraded as science", it is openly declared as an opinion held by some scientists. Scientists are not homogenuous in opinion, there is a long history of differing opinions in letters to editors in science journals. Are you * ignorant of this, or * delibrately misframing it? > That these individuals are abusing their scientific authority in such a flagrant way. Again, it's a letter to the editor expressing the opinion of some. The horse you've climbed up upon here appears quite high. > Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is not "white supremacist ideology". ^F "white supremacist" in https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq4733 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq4733 and the only use of the phrase is: The current political climate is tremendously hostile for BIPOC scientists. [..] .. institutions must resist by taking legal action against civil liberty violations that result from anti-DEI directives. .. As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leadership must take urgent action to protect and support all members of our diverse scientific community. As is clear to native english as a first language readers, that does not state that "Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is white supremacist ideology". You have badly paraphrased an assertion that "anti-DEI directives" (those directives stronger than simple removal) are resulting in civil liberty violations (ie. the racists feel emboldened). The only thing I see here is an opinion piece expressed in a letter to the editor and whole lot of puffery, lambast, and smoke in response.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  Publishing in Science — a premier scientific journal — carries significant weight. When STEM PhDs use this platform for political advocacy, it misleads the public into assuming scientific consensus on divisive issues. It undermines trust in science which is already facing a crisis in legitimacy. The letter states: "As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leadership must take urgent action." This clearly implies a link between anti-DEI efforts and white supremacy. This is an inflammatory leap, and tying it to their PhDs, let alone to Science, disgraces the scientific establishment. And your claim that this doesn't refer to anti-DEI efforts is disingenuous. There is no other phenomenon at play that the alleged "recodification of white supremacy philosophies" could be referring to. The letter is a reaction to the anti-DEI program and is plainly implying that this program amounts to recodification of white supremacy philosophies. They’re using their credentials as a bully pulpit to push a narrow ideological viewpoint. It’s dogmatic and unethical and the decision by Science to give this a platform further undermines the credibility of the scientific establishment. Racial affinity groups promote segregation, clashing with the color-blind foundation of modern science. They are indefensible, and attempts to legitimize them by labeling critics as white supremacists are intellectually dishonest to a shameless extreme. Claiming that disallowing these racial-identity groups in taxpayer funded institutions amounts to promoting civil liberties violations by emboldening racists is just more totally baseless and inflammatory smear tactics to maintain programs that reject colorblindness and thereby promote racism. While they keep conjuring up the racist right-wing boogeyman, actual codified racism — ruled on by the Supreme Court — pervades academia. Racial affinity groups, propped up by this broader racial privilege ideology, have fueled discrimination across academia, where applicants are judged heavily by race. Yet these ideologues have the gall to claim the real threat is to so-called disadvantaged groups. It’s a sham, and the evidence proves it. You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it. Nonsense. I have done no such thing. Please don't lie and misrepresent, that's simply dishonest. You're overstating the importance of a letter to the editor that expresses an opinion. So overstating that importance it's both comical and reflects poorly on yourself and your credibility in making any statements about science.