Then I read the "About Us>Mission/Diversity Statement" and saw this text above. My first thought, beyond the stench of liberalism and an astroturfed leftist agenda under the aegis of "science", was focused on the statement "Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work."
Really? I had to wonder, on what do they base that categorical statement? Has anyone ever seen a study that supports this claim at all, never mind one that was jury-rigged to produce the result they desired.
Granted, it is the exact same type of verbiage used to tout the claims of Anthropoegenic (man caused) Global Warming and just about any other ostensible "science based" thing they try to push, so there is no surprise there.
I constantly hear this type of claim about diversity (applied by leftists to everything from elementary school sports to PHD studies in mathematics) and how it imbues everything with a magical synergy to make the sum greater than the parts. How can someone's race contribute positively to scientific endeavor? I see including elements solely for race, gender, or sexual preference as far more likely to water down and diminish any scientific discussion than to add to it.
Just wanted to open it for discussion.
If only the Theory of Relativity had been discovered by a person of color, things would have been TOTALLY different. /s
“Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work.”
Really? And the science that this statement is based upon is...where?
Basically, if talented and intelligent people of a given background are not turning towards science, the discipline loses out on their potential talent. So there’s an objective benefit to diversity.
Also, challenges experienced by people of a given background may not be addressed if they’re not there to address them.
We thought we were diverse, but do to Gender and Race appropriation we are now homogenous. But that could change on a whim.
>>We believe that regardless of past practices, science should never be used to disenfranchise or marginalize groups of people.<<
What past practices? Eugenics? Phrenology? “The Bell Curve?”
I have never seen a single study that concludes that diversity produces better results than homogeneity.
First, I must state that the blacks I know ALL have real PhDs in real academic subjecrs (e.g., STEM). They did the math, suffered the torture and EARNED their degrees.
Given that, we all know this “March for Science” is only intended to get low IQ dorks (a la Dorkbama the Muslim eunuch, even though that clown would have failed even high school physics) into the sciences where they can perform feats like adding 2+2 and getting 6 (for large values of 2 as two approaches 3) and “proving” that C02 and white privilege destroyed the dinosaurs and blew up Vesuvius.
Just wait, it will come, and dat’s the twuth.
After all, look at the clowns in the press, in law, in libarts departments, and......in politics.
Affirmative Science...
This is the worst thing possible that can happen to science.
I’ve had a lot of conversations about the sad state of science today due to the fact that so many scientists today aren’t really scientists.
This reflects that and will only reinforce it.
Evidence? As a scientist-- the smartest, most driven teams with the right skill sets and strong leadership outperform other teams. There could be some diversity to the team, but in a meritocracy this does not correlate to success, it is fairly random. If team members do not have similar, shared values to the extent they don't get along well, even in a meritocracy a diverse team will under perform. In a non-meritocracy (e.g. affirmative action environment), the diversity of the team is forced by requiring "diversity" to take priority over talent and required skill sets; in this case the diverse team ALWAYS underperforms.
I am prepared to believe that diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams in procuring state and federal grant money. I am skeptical that they are superior in any other dimension — unless “diversity,” in this context, is a codeword for having a reasonable representation of Jewish, Indian, and Asian researchers on board. But somehow, I don’t think that’s that test.
Affirmative Action morphed into diversity - diversity is a very different animal designed for very different reasons. It is the far more insidious.
Some people confuse AA with Diversity. Affirmative Action and qualifications we understand - giving low IQ and poorly prepared africans and other unqualified peoples the opportunity to fail again (depending on how its rigged).
Diversity has most simply become the new way to cheat.
1) “Discrimination” is NONE of the federal government’s business. Discrimination is our God-given right of the freedom to choose.
2) MLK himself said that people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. So IMO we should dispense with this diversity b/s and simply promote by deed and character, not by gender or race.
Diversity? Well, we’ve let in buttload of dumb people so maybe now we can get some smart ones.
The Left wants science to be their invention of how they want things to be.
Science is open to all, regardless of all the politically correct categories. Problem is, scientific endeavors have a hard time carrying a non-performer on the team. If you think that Newton’s science is no good because he wasn’t the right kind of PC category, you will not do well on a project.
There is science. You can’t put a racial adjective before it, like “black science.” Or a reproductive strategy category, like “gay science.”
Math is at the basis of all sciences. If you have creative ideas about math you won’t make it in science.
In other words, affirmative action in science doesn’t work very well. Obviously there are affirmative action promotions and hires, but they are easily recognized as failures.
Responding to this: “Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work.”
Since science teams don’t discriminate, and welcome anyone who can perform to their rigorous standards, there will be people from all backgrounds on the team, in other words, they will be “diverse” without any help from anyone.
Who is against science. It has changed the world. We discover the atom and we have cheap power and tremendous bombs. Someone invents the laser and we end up with pointers, dvd player and efficient headlights.
And then there is medicine...
But I’m no fan of politicized junk science. It is anathema to real science.
Saw this advertised on the Society for Neuroscience website. When I joined in the dark ages, it was a highly respected organization. In the last 25 years,it has been taken over by extreme left wing radicals.
Actually, a diverse mix of stupid people and intelligent people is sure to give you good results; better than if they were all intelligent. At least that’s the consensus (amongst the stupid).
Sounds like a movement to make science fit into the self-created reality du jur ...
My son graduated from Purdue with his Chem E in 2015. His commencement ceremony was all Engineering disciplines. A few women, some African blacks, and lots of Asians. Very few American blacks, and none of them in Chemical, Nuclear, Electrical and Computer, or Aeronautical/Aerospace disciplines. The math in most of tbose fields is brutal, and the math does not care about “diversity.”