3 ms·
Glad Harvard finally decided attacks against academia have gone too far. It wasn't too far when scientists were forced to make an ideological oath to diversity
by like_any_other 2y ago
Glad Harvard finally decided attacks against academia have gone too far. It wasn't too far when scientists were forced to make an ideological oath to diversity to get hired [1,2], when they were hired primarily based on adherence to that ideology [3,4,5], when they were told by major scientific publications to avoid or simply not publish studies that might question that ideology [6,7], when they disavowed studies based solely on them being used to criticize favored causes [8], when papers were rejected if their results went against the liberal worldview, but methodologically-identical papers with pro-liberal results were accepted [9], or when scientists were barred from accessing taxpayer-funded data if there was a risk their research might harm the dominant ideology [10].
It was too far - a crisis! - when Harvard disagreed with the attackers, when the attackers were outsiders.
[1] Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
[2] Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
[3] Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
[4] A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loyalty-oaths/ https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
[5] Mathematicians divided over faculty hiring practices that require proof of efforts to promote diversity - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divided-over-faculty-hiring-practices-require-proof-efforts-promote https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divid...
[6] Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-be-used-to-foster-white-supremacy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-...
[7] Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2
[8] I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It - https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis...
[9] Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001
[10] The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may enter “forbidden” territory. - https://www.city-journal.org/nih-blocks-access-to-genetics-database https://www.city-journal.org/nih-blocks-access-to-genetics-d...
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoWhich of your links apply to Harvard? The first is in respect of the University of California.
- like_any_other 2y ago> attacks against academia None of which Harvard opposed, and Harvard itself scored abysmally in support of (or rather tolerance of) free speech [1]. Harvard is merely engaging in self-defense, not defense of any higher principles. [1] https://unherd.com/newsroom/harvard-ranked-as-americas-worst-college-for-free-speech/ https://unherd.com/newsroom/harvard-ranked-as-americas-worst...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> None of which Harvard opposed. Harvard is merely engaging in self-defense, not defense of any higher principles Weird line, but sure. Whatever. Point is the hypocrisy you imply does not exist.