From FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression):
The alleged termination of a St. Philip’s College biology professor for saying X and Y chromosomes determine biological sex raises serious concerns about the state of academic freedom at the public college in Texas. Today, FIRE asked the college to reverse course and meet its First Amendment obligations.
At Skeptical Inquirer, Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja have written about the damage ideology is doing to the field of biology. Like many well-written articles today by people with their eyes open, this is not fun to read. It is never easy to read about the ideological capture of universities or the corruption of entire fields of study or the fact that numerous intelligent good-hearted people are increasingly afraid to speak up. I had the same reaction when viewing this 2022 video by Lawrence Krauss: "Is Woke Science the Only Science Allowed in Academia?"
Here is the Summary of the new article by Coyne and Maroja, "The Ideological Subversion of Biology."
Previous research indicated that corrective information can sometimes provoke a so-called “backfire effect” in which respondents more strongly endorsed a misperception about a controversial political or scientific issue when their beliefs or predispositions were challenged. I show how subsequent research and media coverage seized on this finding, distorting its generality and exaggerating its role relative to other factors in explaining the durability of political misperceptions. To the contrary, an emerging research consensus finds that corrective information is typically at least somewhat effective at increasing belief accuracy when received by respondents. However, the research that I review suggests that the accuracy-increasing effects of corrective information like fact checks often do not last or accumulate; instead, they frequently seem to decay or be overwhelmed by cues from elites and the media promoting more congenial but less accurate claims.
Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
Here we give six examples of how our own field—evolutionary and organismal biology—has been impeded or misrepresented by ideology. Each example involves a misstatement spread by ideologues, followed by a brief explanation of why each statement is wrong. Finally, we give what we see as the ideology behind each misstatement and then assess its damage to scientific research, teaching, and the popular understanding of science. Our ultimate concern is biology research—the discovery of new facts—but research isn’t free from social influence; it goes hand in hand with teaching and the public acceptance of biological facts. If certain areas of research are stigmatized by the media, for example, public understanding will suffer, and there will follow a loss of interest in teaching as well as in research in these areas. By cutting off or impeding interest in biology, the misrepresentation or stigmatization by the media ultimately deprives us of opportunities to understand the world.[More . . . ]
In February, FIRE announced its model legislation that would prohibit all political litmus tests by universities, including DEI statements. I am fully in support. Here is a link to the Model Legislation. What follows is an excerpt from FIRE's announcement:
FIRE warned in a statement last year that the First Amendment “prohibits public universities from compelling faculty to assent to specific ideological views or to embed those views in academic activities.” But colleges have not stopped imposing political litmus tests on students and faculty in the guise of furthering DEI efforts.
Vague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI.
[In February, 2023 FIRE introduced model legislation that] prohibits the use of political litmus tests in college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions. Legislation is strong medicine, but our work demonstrates the seriousness of the threat. While the current threat involves coercion to support DEI ideology, efforts to coerce opposition to DEI ideology would be just as objectionable. Attempts to require fealty to any given ideology or political commitment — whether “patriotism” or “social justice” — must be likewise rejected.
To that end, because we are cognizant of the endless swing of the partisan pendulum, FIRE’s legislative approach bans all loyalty oaths and litmus tests, without regard to viewpoint or ideology. In an effort to avoid exchanging one set of constitutional problems for another, our model legislation prohibits demanding support for or opposition to a particular political or ideological view. We believe this approach is constitutionally sound and most broadly protective of student and faculty rights, both now and in the future.
FIRE strongly believes that loyalty oaths and political litmus tests have no place in our nation’s public universities. Given the pernicious threat to freedom of conscience and academic freedom we have seen on campus after campus over the past several years, legislative remedies are worthy of thoughtful consideration. We look forward to further discussion with both supporters and critics about how best to ensure that our nation’s public colleges and universities remain the havens for intellectual freedom they must be.
You can probably find a cheap hotel room in downtown San Francisco now. Social Justice ideology is destroying the city. Shellenberger has written an entire book on this decay. Read his Tweet thread and weep for a once great city.
I agree with Amy Alkon's position on "transphobia":
Transphobia" is usually a bullshit accusation, used to demonize people like me who believe ALL people deserve to be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity - but who refuse to go with the unscientific fiction that there are more than two sexes, & believe biological males do not belong in women's sports or women's prisons. And that 6-year-old girls shouldn't have to look at swinging dicks in women's locker room.Stonewall definition of transphobia is "fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans." I have zero fear or dislike of trans people, and a lot of empathy for them.
What I won't stand for is vicious trans activists violently attacking women, mobbing women who refuse to parrot the language they demand or have beliefs like mine: there are 2 biolog sexes, & women's sports/prisons are no place for biological males.
I would add that shelters for abused women are not proper places for biological males.