The night skies were alive tonight in Glacier National Park, where one of my 20 sec exposure shots of the silhouetted mountains captured thousands of stars, the Milky Way and at least 5 shooting stars.
The sun lit the skies this afternoon at Glacier National Park:
A new article examines the many problems of DEI. Jerry Coyne discusses this article in his own article, "More ideology in science: DEI infects the process for handing out scientific grants". In this post, I want to focus on "What is DEI," which refers to the triply problematic "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion." Coyne's excerpt:
While no reasonable person can oppose the morality of trying to to give every American equal opportunity to become a scientist (and that starts with birth), the mandates that condition federal funding call not for equal opportunity, but for equity—“equal outcomes” so that minoritized groups—not just races, but LGBTQ+, the disabled, women, and anybody said to be disadvantaged because of oppression—are represented in proportion to their occurrence in the general population. Here’s the authors’ construal of DEI as it is actually implemented by the government:
Actual DEI policies do not promote viewpoint diversity, equitable treatment of individuals based on their accomplishments, or equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their identity (e.g., race, sex, ethnicity). It can scarcely be questioned (Krylov and Tanzman, 2024) that DEI programs today are driven by an ideology, an offshoot of Critical Social Justice1 (CSJ) (Pluckrose, 2021; Deichmann 2023). DEI programs elevate the collective above the individual. They group people into categories defined by immutable characteristics (race, sex, etc.) and classify each group as either “privileged” or “victimized,” as “oppressor” or “oppressed.” The goals of DEI programs are to have each group participate in proportion to their fraction of thepopulation in every endeavor of society and to obtain proportionate outcomes from those endeavors. Disproportionate outcomes (with respect to science, such outcomes as publications, funding, citations, salaries, and awards), or disparities, are axiomatically ascribed to systemic factors, such as systemic racism and sexism, without consideration of alternative explanations (Sowell, 2019, 2023). Claims, such as “The presence of disparities is proof of systemic racism” and “Meritocracy is a myth” are propagated widely despite the vagueness of the claims and their lack of support by concrete data. Similarly, tenets that are central to DEI ideology—such as diversity is excellence, diverse teams outperform homogenous teams, and the advancement of women is impeded by biases—lack a robust evidence base, particularly when applied to science (Abbot et al., 2023; Krylov and Tanzman, 2023; Ceci et al., 2021, 2023).Note that several important claims, including the assertion that underrepresentation of minoritized groups is due to ongoing systemic racism (which would be illegal) and that diverse scientific teams consistently outperform more homogeneous ones. Neither claim is supported by evidence.
My own opinion (and that of the authors; see below) is to give as many people as possible the opportunity to do science, and choose for advancement those who do the best work. That might not result in equity, but it does allow equal opportunity. I recognize, of course, that we’re a long way from giving different groups equal opportunity, which must begin at or even before birth. But equal opportunity is the only permanent way to solve the problem of disproportional representation in science (or any endeavor). Effecting that will be hard, and requires immense effort, money, and empirical tests of educational systems, but once it’s in place, unequal representation would reflect other things, like behavioral differences or differential preferences among groups.
Paul Griffith explains in a letter to Nature:
Nature's recent Editorial and collection of opinion articles on sex and gender in research would have benefited from greater attention to evolutionary biology and the definition of sex by anisogamy, or differing gamete size. In the words of evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden in her book Evolution's Rainbow (Univ. California Press, 2013): "To a biologist, "male" means making small gametes, and "female" means making large gametes. Period!"Nature 631, 275 (2024)
This definition avoids the 'sex binary' that concerns so many people. Some organisms produce both male and female gametes, and others produce different gametes at distinct life stages or under various conditions. Organisms can be male, female, both at the same time, male at one time and female at another, or have no clear and unambiguous sex. The definition also implies that there are no essential or universal male or female phenotypes: male pipefish gestate their embryos and female jacana birds fight over mates, for example.
Anisogamy is at the heart of the modern theory of why sexes evolved and why they show such extraordinary diversity. Neglecting it makes the varied phenotypic expression of sex, and its interaction with gender in humans, seem unmanageably complex. As with so much of biology, sex makes better sense when viewed in the light of evolution.
doi: https//doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02248-1
A fundamental question that I ask people when I'm gauging their intellectual honesty is to describe for me what the evidence would need to look like in order for them to alter a given position that they hold. With that in mind, is there any reality that would cause the West to snap out of its parasitic ideological rapture and implement the necessary cataclysmic auto-corrective measures? If yes, we must still have some hope to hold on to. If not, it is going to be a painful death spiral.
Let's start by trying to convince people to use basic induction to convince them that A = A. That would be a good start. It's the basis for the Rule of Law.
Why did J.K. Rowling take a strong stand in support of women, exposing herself to "a tsunami of death and rape threats"? See the following excerpt from J.K. Rowling's new book, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht:
The thing is, those appalled by my position often fail to grasp how truly despicable I find theirs. I’ve watched “no debate” become the slogan of those who once posed as defenders of free speech. I’ve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women don’t exist as an observable biological class and don’t deserve biology-based rights. I’ve listened as certain female celebrities insist that there isn’t the slightest risk to women and girls in allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to enter single-sex spaces reserved for women, including changing rooms, bathrooms or rape shelters. . . . I’ve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like “woman” and “mother”, and replacing them with “cervix-haver”, “menstruator” and “birthing parent”, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. They seem confused and irritated by this question. Better that a hundred women who aren’t up to speed with the latest gender jargon miss public health information than that one trans-identified individual feels invalidated, seems to be the view.