• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

Trausti said:
You seem obsessed with the race of Trump's appointees; especially if they've got that skin hue you find so disgusting.
Click to expand...

It’s the incompetence and lack of qualifications that is disgusting, which you notably do not deny. Pointing out that they’re white is just an explanation for how they got the jobs.
 
Feels like we're drifting off-topic. Let's right the ship.

D.E.I. Statements Stir Debate

GiZvZ6IXYAANXG0
 
jt512 said:
Trump is not hostile to “health science.” His director of HHS is an antivax loon with a variety of nutty ideas.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have hired such a director if he weren't hostile to health science. People are going to suffer because of decisions Trump made. He hired an antivax look with a variety of nutty ideas because his ego is more important to him than any health science.
jt512 said:
Trump may be hostile to climate science, but the field has been politicized to a degree you literally wouldn’t believe. A lot of that research is funded to produce politically correct messages and thus deserves to be defunded.
Click to expand...
Even if true, it's not just the "politically correct messaging" that's being defunded. Everything is being defunded, including what even you would admit was good science. He is hostile to climate science and the world is going to suffer for it.
jt512 said:
I don’t think Trump is opposed to social science. He is anti-woke, and huge swaths of the social sciences have been captured by leftist ideologues, such that the output from those fields is not scientific, but ideological.
Click to expand...
So he claims. It's one of the transparent excuses he uses when he's slashing and burning through social programmes.
jt512 said:
“All kinds of science”? Hardly. I see no hint of opposition to the real basic sciences, namely, physics, chemistry, and biology, or to mathematics or engineering. And Trump has explicitly stated that he wants to strengthen research in computer science, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing.
Click to expand...
All sciences are being defunded. Universities are being defunded. Grant programmes are being shut down. Because of so-called "DEI". His anti-"woke" crusade comes at the expense of good research.
jt512 said:
So, no, Trump is not anti-science.
Click to expand...
Obviously hostile to science as I said. He is openly and proudly hostile to some science, like climate science, and the other sciences are irrelevant to him. He doesn't care. He cares about nothing but the things that stroke his massive ego, and there's obviously no science that's going to do that. He is a pathological narcissist who is willing to let the world burn, literally, if it means he gets to aggrandise himself.

He is the only important thing in his world. Everything else is irrelevant. And that includes most science.
 
I think there's a big mistake being made here. Regardless of how one personally views it, it is demonstrably possible for some surprisingly non-scientific views to coexist with science, as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, using the term "non-overlapping magisteria." You may or may not subscribe to that idea for yourself, but it's clear that some scientists can. There is a fundamental difference here when there is no excuse for denying the overlap. A person who, like Jimmy Carter, for example, subscribes to Biblical lore and all it entails, is not the same as a person who, Like Trump and his supporters, confuses scientific truth with political position and subscribes to overt denial of science, defunding of scientific research that disagrees with his opinions, the destruction of universities, and so forth. Our current administration conspicuously, and even proudly, confuses politics with science, and even if some scientists have managed to survive in the wreckage, denial of that confusion requires a tunnel vision on their part that is at best unseemly and at worst fatally delusional.
 
arthwollipot said:
He wouldn't have hired such a director if he weren't hostile to health science.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. He appointed RFK as a quid pro quo for him dropping out of the presidential race. Not that I approve of that, but it's what he did.
arthwollipot said:
Even if true, it's not just the "politically correct messaging" that's being defunded. Everything is being defunded, including what even you would admit was good science.
Click to expand...
I agree that Trump's planned cuts to climate science are excessive, but not "everything" is being cut. The US will still fund some climate research.
arthwollipot said:
He is hostile to climate science and the world is going to suffer for it.
Click to expand...
The world is not entitled to US science research. Here's an idea: how about countries, like, um, Australia, picking up more of the tab.
arthwollipot said:
So he claims. It's one of the transparent excuses he uses when he's slashing and burning through social programmes.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but Occam says otherwise, namely, that Trump is doing what he says he's doing: using federal funding as a lever to force campuses to shutter their DEI programs and to force them to apply existing civil rights laws to protect their Jewish students and faculty.
arthwollipot said:
All sciences are being defunded.
Click to expand...
False, as already explained. In fact, the DoE, on its own initiative, just contracted my partner, asking her to submit a proposal to one of their programs, implying that approval would be more-or-less guaranteed.
arthwollipot said:
Universities are being defunded. Grant programmes are being shut down. Because of so-called "DEI". His anti-"woke" crusade comes at the expense of good research.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, funding is the main tool that the federal government has to force much-needed reforms on universities. Most of that funding (at least for private universities, like Harvard and Columbia) comes in the form of grants, and the overwhelming amount of those funds are for science programs. This is unfortunate for science departments because, if universities don't institute the reforms the federal government is demanding, the science departments will be unfairly paying the price for problems primarily caused by the humanities, social science, and "studies" departments.

On the other hand, if the university complies, it gets the money back.
 
arthwollipot said:
Even if true, it's not just the "politically correct messaging" that's being defunded. Everything is being defunded, including what even you would admit was good science. He is hostile to climate science and the world is going to suffer for it.
Click to expand...

Just because... I think that that "even if true" should have a bit more context added. Starting with big picture context, on the one side of the issue is the overwhelming scientific consensus, including long standing internal assessments of various big polluters. On the other side is a relatively tiny slice of the relevant scientists (and lots of propaganda spin) that largely have significant conflicts of interest, much of which has involved PR and business decisions made by the aforementioned big polluters. That second side, in particular, has actively worked to politicize the issue as part of their efforts to maintain and increase profits for the big polluters. Why? Because they've found that the tactic works for their goals. Those fighting for and cheering on the big polluters' sabotage of climate science via Trump and co by whining about how the field's become so politicized are a bit despicable, frankly, just by the nature of the situation and argument.
 
jt512 said:
Nonsense. He appointed RFK as a quid pro quo for him dropping out of the presidential race. Not that I approve of that, but it's what he did.

I agree that Trump's planned cuts to climate science are excessive, but not "everything" is being cut. The US will still fund some climate research.

The world is not entitled to US science research. Here's an idea: how about countries, like, um, Australia, picking up more of the tab.

Sorry, but Occam says otherwise, namely, that Trump is doing what he says he's doing: using federal funding as a lever to force campuses to shutter their DEI programs and to force them to apply existing civil rights laws to protect their Jewish students and faculty.

False, as already explained. In fact, the DoE, on its own initiative, just contracted my partner, asking her to submit a proposal to one of their programs, implying that approval would be more-or-less guaranteed.

Unfortunately, funding is the main tool that the federal government has to force much-needed reforms on universities. Most of that funding (at least for private universities, like Harvard and Columbia) comes in the form of grants, and the overwhelming amount of those funds are for science programs. This is unfortunate for science departments because, if universities don't institute the reforms the federal government is demanding, the science departments will be unfairly paying the price for problems primarily caused by the humanities, social science, and "studies" departments.

On the other hand, if the university complies, it gets the money back.
Click to expand...
Some of the reforms demanded by Tramp are totally inappropriate and cannot be complied with if the college wants to maintain any sense of independence.
 
Hercules56 said:
Some of the reforms demanded by Tramp are totally inappropriate and cannot be complied with if the college wants to maintain any sense of independence.
Click to expand...
I agree with that in the case of Harvard, but I think the government would have relented on those if Harvard had shown an openness to negotiation. That's what they'll end up doing anyway. There will almost certainly be an out-of-court settlement, according to reports from legal experts.
 
arthwollipot said:
Negotiation? An academic institution negotiating with non-academics on how to run academia?

In any other field that would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...
"Give us your money. Don't ask questions. You're not qualified to understand what we do with your money. Your elected representatives aren't qualified to inquire into our stewardship of your money. Just give us your money and shut up. We'll take care of the rest."
 
theprestige said:
"Give us your money. Don't ask questions. You're not qualified to understand what we do with your money. Your elected representatives aren't qualified to inquire into our stewardship of your money. Just give us your money and shut up. We'll take care of the rest."
Click to expand...
"Run your business the way we tell you or you don't get our money at all".

"Nice library you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom