Headline explained here, if you don’t understand it.
Maybe we’ll have to redefine STEM as Sanctimonious Tyrannical Extortion of Mediocrity.
“All across the country the big question now in STEM is: how can we promote more women and minorities by ‘changing’ (i.e., lowering) the requirements we had previously set for graduate level study?”
Diversity, determined solely by skin color and/or “gender orientation,” is becoming the most important characteristic for designing bridges, spacecraft, and medical devices.
Expect slower innovation, more engineering failures, and greater risk from surgeries.
A few examples of those who have attracted Progressive contempt because they point out uncontroversial scientific facts Social Justice Warriors don’t want you to hear:
Dr. Charles Murray. Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers. Dr. Judith Curry. Dr. Jordan Peterson. James Damore. Dr. Amy Wax. Dr. Bret Weinstein. Lindsay Shepherd.
Dr. David Reich bravely makes a bid to join them. RTWT: How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’, but here’s a short excerpt.
What makes genetic racial stereotyping,
[S]o insidious is that [these claims] start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.
This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly…
…a natural response to the challenge is to learn from the example of the biological differences that exist between males and females. The differences between the sexes are far more profound than those that exist among human populations, reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation. Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t.
Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)
How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.
A few thoughts.
“[R]eluctance of the academic community to openly discuss,” is a serious misunderestimation. Try, “The academic community openly and actively suppresses.”
“If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing…”, well anything the SJWs don’t like discussed, we avoid censure and unemployment.
“[T]here are important unresolved questions.” Not for the Left. Not about sex, gender, climate change or race.
As populations go, “most everyone” is far less likely to be true if the population is university professors of Sociology, English, Education, or anything ending in “Studies.” The denial of biological difference between men and women, for example, is seriously advanced by many credentialed academics. To present the case, we have Dr. Nicholas Matte, professor of gender studies at University of Toronto:
Dr. Matte is but one academiot forced by postmodernist dogma to make such assertions, because to allow discussion of an inconvenient scientific fact threatens his life’s work. Better to impugn the scientific method. Better to equate speech you don’t like with violence. Better to be a laughingstock.
I am pleasantly surprised by the performance of President Trump. I retain major objections to his ignorant trade policies, among other things, but I did not expect him to perform as well as he has in general.
One of the things he’s accomplished is to expose the true intentions of the Progressives. Rather than the insidious slide toward Cultural-Marxism, he’s managed to bring them out of the woodwork all at once. Probably earlier than is good for their agenda.
Like everything, there’s a risky side to this.
I am of two minds about the uninterrupted, screeching hysteria from the Left. At first, Conan the Barbarian’s prospect of “crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women” – one woman in particular – was amusing.
However, I’m increasingly worried that the irrational cacophony is seriously damaging. Given the caterwauling, maybe I’m naive in thinking mutual respect, or at least feigned civility, ever actually existed. Of course, the President shares some blame for it via his puerile Tweeting habit. Still, those who own the protracted frenzy are the ones who control it.
Progressives will blame their actions on the President’s supposed racism and narcissism, but nothing he’s said is any worse than things said by former President Obama (and arguably not as bad as “typical white person” or “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”).
It is not the President’s fault that his opponents are insisting upon a vision of race diametrically opposed to what we learned from Dr. Martin Luther King. How long will it be before there’s agitation to tear down King’s statues?
What Progressives are doing is teaching ideologues of a different tribe that Dr. King was terribly wrong about character, and that skin color trumps everything:
What’s interesting to me, though, are indications that the Cathedral — that is, the formal and informal cultural-liberal power structure — is going to double down on demonizing whites as a race…
…here’s what the Cathedral left needs to know: you aren’t going to be able to count on conservative people like me to help you oppose the alt-right, because you are their “respectable” left-wing mirror image…
…increasingly fewer people on the right are going to listen to conservatives like me, because they see us as holding to outdated principles that are incapable of stopping the left-wing power grab. The Cathedralized left sees no reason to be fair, so why should they?
Read the whole thing.
University of Pennsylvania Professor Anthea Butler called Presidential Candidate Ben Carson a “coon” for claiming that people have the right to display Confederate flags on private property.
The First Amendment protects her right to say this, as it does the rights of those she describes in racist vitriol.
It does not protect her continued employment. Tenure does that. She brags about her tenure.
She needs to ‘check her privilege.’
Must read Op-Ed from Ben Carson:
Ben Carson: #BlackLivesMatter misfire.
The opening paragraphs:
The idea that disrupting and protesting Bernie Sanders speeches will change what is wrong in America is lunacy. The “BlackLivesMatter” movement is focused on the wrong targets, to the detriment of blacks who would like to see real change and to the benefit of its powerful white liberal funders using the attacks on Sanders for political purposes that mean nothing for the problems that face our community.
The notion that some lives might matter less than others is meant to enrage. That anger is distracting us from what matters most. We’re right to be angry, but we have to stay smart.
#BlackLivesMatter is for-profit Tribalism.
It is a blatantly racialist meme; declaring blood, tribe and territory Über Alles. Old, pale, .01 percenters like George Soros are funding it.
Can you say Plantation?
You might think from these stories that the American system of child protection is superior to the German. In one case children are protected from thuggish parents, in the other they are whisked away from loving parents by jackbooted thugs. However, that’s not quite the whole story. There’s something to detest in either case.
First, to Germany:
Meanwhile, Back in the Fatherland…
Because they were home-schooled, the German judge was concerned that “the children would grow up in a parallel society without having learned to be integrated or to have a dialogue with those who think differently and facing them in the sense of practicing tolerance.” So, he ordered the State to seize well adjusted children from caring parents, because at some indeterminate future date, and based on a moronic hypothetical, they might not have been properly assimilated by the State.
If you accept the German judge’s definition of child abuse, you’ll be in agreement with the Progressive tyrants in this country who vilify home-schooling and want to criminalize it. He just stated their case succinctly. They think it’s your child’s job to help civilize the teenager the toddler in our next story is going to become.
Here’s a “parallel society” in the United States from which children were forcibly removed:
Cursing toddler: See why this ‘thug’ video is shocking the nation
The twist is, after this video was posted on the internet, some people called it racist. Not the activity in the video, the act of posting it. Think about that, who thought it was a good idea to make the video in the first place?
No, the video itself is not racist, but some Americans consider exposing child abuse to be racist based on the melanin content of the participants. Those people are the actual racists. They’d have been cheering former MSNBC host Martin Bashir on were he to have shown a similar video of Jews or Japanese.
In America revealing a 2 minute home video of black family dysfunction is cited as evidence of racism, but if you have hours of white dysfunction you make it into a television series and call it Honey Boo Boo.
Dan Riehl on Shirley Sherrod’s family.
Read it. And watch the videos, too.
I’d say the reason Ms Sherrod had no Sunday TV interviews is becoming more obvious. The MSM can only afford to give her 5 of her 15 minutes, or the “narrative” will not simply disintegrate, but be forced into a 180.
Once and future (?) USDA official Shirley Sherrod is using her 15 minutes of fame to make us wonder if her epiphany regarding race was, perhaps, incomplete or insincere. Is she morphing into a combination of Jeremiah Wright and Cindy Sheehan?
The Obama administration threw Sherrod under the bus in record time, then quickly apologized and rehabilitated her. However, this CNN interview did not show her in the best light.
For example, when she says she didn’t get, and didn’t really need, an apology from the president because “He’s the president of the United States,” ask yourself if she would have said the same thing if George Bush were still in that office. She goes on to say that Andrew Brietbart only released the video because “He was after a black president.” Based on the record, everyone’s pigmentation, not just the President’s, matters more to Ms Sherrod than it does to Mr. Brietbart.
Dan Riehl, at Human Events:
Sherrod says, “I haven’t seen such mean-spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue, healthcare. Some of the racism we thought was buried, didn’t it surface.”
In Sherrod’s world, no one is allowed to object to a significant Obama-supported policy change impacting the healthcare of all Americans without being labeled a racist.
John Hinderaker – Eric Holder’s Buddy
The biggest scandal in the news these days is the explicitly racist law enforcement policy that has been adopted by the Department of Justice under Eric Holder.
Well, I don’t know about “in the news,” but the rest of that sentence is correct.