Literally what "decolonize STEM" means.
seen from United States
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from China

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from China

seen from United Kingdom
seen from South Korea

seen from United States
Literally what "decolonize STEM" means.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Like other early American geologists, the man who explored the Colorado River did anthropologic research that presupposed the racial inferiority of Native Americans
This article on John Wesley Powell, who famously explored the Grand Canyon area and after whom Lake Powell is named, explores his so-called anthropological studies of the Native populations and his belief that those populations needed to be "Civilized". An illustration of the choices we are making when we tell certain parts of a story to glorify an individual, while leaving other parts to a legacy that isn't discussed.
Strike for Black Lives
Today, June 10, has been declared "Shut Down STEM" day, a day when researchers should take time to educate and inform themselves about the ways the that racism and colonialism have left damaging legacies on the sciences. This page will join in by sharing some related content today while also working to better educate myself. https://www.particlesforjustice.org/
I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that âthe factsâ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as âthe truthâ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as âscienceâ. There is only âGerman scienceâ, âJewish scienceâ etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, âIt never happenedâ â well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five â well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs â and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.
But is it perhaps childish or morbid to terrify oneself with visions of a totalitarian future? Before writing off the totalitarian world as a nightmare that canât come true, just remember that in 1925 the world of today would have seemed a nightmare that couldnât come true. Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterdayâs weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently canât violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive.
-- George Orwell, "Looking Back on the Spanish War" (1943)
Eerie.
[ Note: In 1949, Orwell subsequently wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. ]
--
"One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge. Given that the transmission of knowledge is an integral activity in schools, critical scholars in the field of education have been especially concerned with how knowledge is produced. These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it."
-- Ozlem Sensoy/Robin DiAngelo, "Is Everyone Really Equal?"
Iâm in New Zealand, climax to my antipodean speaking tour, where I walked headlong into a raging controversy. Jacinda Ardernâs government im
By: Richard Dawkins
Published: Mar 4, 2023
Iâm in New Zealand, climax to my antipodean speaking tour, where I walked headlong into a raging controversy. Jacinda Ardernâs government implemented a ludicrous policy, spawned by Chris Hipkinsâs Ministry of Education before he became prime minister. Science classes are to be taught that MÄori âWays of Knowingâ (MÄtauranga MÄori) have equal standing with âwesternâ science. Not surprisingly, this adolescent virtue-signalling horrified New Zealandâs grown-up scientists and scholars. Seven of them wrote to the Listener magazine. Three who were fellows of the NZ Royal Society were threatened with an inquisitorial investigation. Two of these, including the distinguished medical scientist Garth Cooper, himself of MÄori descent, resigned (the third unfortunately died). I was delighted to meet Professor Cooper for lunch, with others of the seven. His resignation letter cited the societyâs failure to support science against its denigration as âa western European inventionâ. He was affronted, too, by a complaint (not endorsed by the NZRS) that âto insist MÄori children learn to read is an act of colonisationâ. Is there an implication here â condescending, if not downright racist â that âindigenousâ children need separate, special treatment?
Perhaps the most disagreeable aspect of this sorry affair is the climate of fear. We who donât have a career to lose should speak out in defence of those who do. The magnificent seven are branded heretics by a nastily zealous new religion, a witch-hunt that recalls the false accusations against J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock. Professor Kendall Clements was removed from teaching evolution at the University of Auckland, after the School of Biological Sciences Putaiao Committee submitted the following recommendation: âWe do not feel that either Kendall or Garth should be put in front of students as teachers. This is not safe for studentsâŚâ Not safe? Who are these cringing little wimps whose âsafetyâ requires protection against free speech? What on earth do they think a university is for?
To grasp government intentions requires a little work, because every third word of the relevant documents is in MÄori. Since only 2 per cent of New Zealanders (and only 5 per cent of MÄoris) speak that language, this again looks like self-righteous virtue-signalling, bending a knee to that modish version of Original Sin which is white guilt. MÄtauranga MÄori includes valuable tips on edible fungi, star navigation and species conservation (pity the moas were all eaten). Unfortunately it is deeply invested in vitalism. New Zealand children will be taught the true wonder of DNA, while being simultaneously confused by the doctrine that all life throbs with a vital force conferred by the Earth Mother and the Sky Father. Origin myths are haunting and poetic, but they belong elsewhere in the curriculum. The very phrase âwesternâ science buys into the ârelativistâ notion that evolution and big bang cosmology are just the origin myth of white western men, a narrative whose hegemony over âindigenousâ alternatives stems from nothing better than political power. This is pernicious nonsense. Science belongs to all humanity. It is humanityâs proud best shot at discovering the truth about the real world.
My speeches in Auckland and Wellington were warmly applauded, though one woman yelled a protest. She was politely invited to participate, but she chose to walk out instead. I truthfully said that, when asked my favourite country, I invariably choose New Zealand. Citing the legacy of Ernest Rutherford, the greatest experimental physicist since Faraday, I begged my audiences to reach out to their MPs in support of New Zealand science. The true reason science is more than an origin myth is that it stands on evidence: massively documented evidence, double blind trials, peer review, quantitative predictions precisely verified in labs around the world. Science reads the billion-word DNA book of life itself. Science eradicates smallpox and polio. Science navigates to Pluto or a tiny comet. Science almost certainly saved your life. Science works.
Postscript on the flight out: Air New Zealand think it a cute idea to invoke MÄori gods in their safety briefing. Imagine if British Airways announced that their planes are kept aloft by the Holy Ghost in equal partnership with Bernoulliâs Principle and Newtonâs First Law. Science explains. It lightens our darkness. Science is the poetry of reality. It belongs to all humanity. Kia Ora!
[ Via: https://archive.is/ehxJ3 ]
==
When you're an authoritarian putting people through inquisitions and threatening their livelihoods, you're not doing science, you're doing ideology... and possibly theology.
And it's reliably the case that there's some gross form of virtuous (neo)racism baked in there somewhere.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective
By: D. Abbot, A. Bikfalvi, A.L. BleskeÂRechek, W. Bodmer, P. Boghossian, C.M. Carvalho, J. Ciccolini, J.A. Coyne, J. Gauss, P.M.W. Gill, S. Jitomirskaya, L. Jussim, A.I. Krylov, G.C. Loury, L. Maroja, J.H. McWhorter, S. Moosavi, P. Nayna Schwerdtle, J. Pearl, M.A. QuintanillaÂ-Tornel, H.F. Schaefer III, P.R. Schreiner, P. Schwerdtfeger, D. Shechtman, M. Shifman, J. Tanzman, B.L. Trout, A. Warshel, and J.D. West.
Published: Apr 28, 2023
Abstract: Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with nonÂscientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, humanÂcentered approach to address existing social inequalities.
1. Introduction
We live in an incredible time of human history. As Barack Obama said: âIf you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didnât know ahead of time who you were going to beâwhat nationality, what gender, what race, whether youâd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith youâd be born into . . . you would choose right now.â While the benefits of significant global progress and economic development have not been shared equally, the world as a whole has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and in many ways more tolerant and less violent, than it is today.
How did we get here? Science provided solutions to such calamities as famine and plague, transforming them âfrom incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges.â By improving the world economy and increasing global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARSÂCoVÂ2 virus in a weekend, helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture, contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problemÂsolving, contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.
Of course, serious problems continue to challenge us; poverty, inequality, wars, and violence persist. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic disease threaten global gains made over the past century. However, science continues to be the best tool humanity possesses to address these complex, collective challenges. Indeed, science holds the key to solving these problemsâit provides the basis for renewable energy technologies, mitigating anthropogenic impact on the global climate, feeding the worldâs growing population, controlling pandemics, and eradicating debilitating diseases. Of course, science alone is not sufficient: science is but a tool that can be used for good and bad. It is our responsibility as a society to use it responsibly, ethically, and effectively.
Fulfilling this responsibility, however, is being hindered by a new, alarming clash between liberal epistemology and identityÂbased ideologies. Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. The statuses, identities, and demographics of scientists are irrelevant to this great sifting of valid versus invalid ideas.
In contrast, identity-Âbased ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice (CSJ), which assert that modern science is âracist,â âpatriarchal,â and âcolonial,â and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.
In this perspective, we explain the differences between the two epistemologies and argue that meritocracy (grounded in philosophical liberal epistemology), however imperfect, is the best and fairest way to conduct science. We endorse policies to mitigate existing inequalities of opportunities, but explain why CSJ-Âbased policies are pernicious (CSJ differs from social justice as a concept). Therefore, we offer a liberal, humanistic alternative that is compatible with maximizing scientific advances.
[...]
7. The Way Forward
Science has been the driving force behind unprecedented improvements in the global quality of lifeâfrom advances in medical diagnostics and cancer treatment to the information technology revolution, from the growth of agricultural productivity to the development of sustainable energy. Science and technology are global and highly competitive. If dismantling the meritÂbased practices of the U.S. and other democratic countries continues unabated, the loss of leadership in developing cuttingÂedge technologies is likely to eventuate.
For science to succeed, it must strive for the nonÂideological pursuit of objective truth. Scientists should feel free to pursue political projects in the public sphere as private citizens, but not to inject their personal politics and biases into the scientific endeavor. Maintaining institutional neutrality is also essential for cultivating public trust in science. The rush to create systems institutionalizing racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in college admissions and hiring will further corrode public trust in academia and science (e.g., surveys from the U.S. show that most Americans, including most Americans of color, reject such preferences). Although no system is guaranteed to eliminate all biases, meritÂbased systems are the best tool to mitigate it. Moreover, they promote social cohesion because they can be observed to maximize fairness.
Admittedly, meritocracy is imperfect. The best and brightest do not always win. But the idea that meritocracy is nothing but a myth is demonstrably false, indeed absurd. Were it but a myth, college admissions and hiring could be conducted without regard to applicantsâ qualifications, and students or employees could be selected at random.
The role of science in rectifying social inequalities goes beyond âtrickleÂdownâ effects of scientific progress. Science can help to develop programs addressing both the root causes of inequalities and the effectiveness of remedial policies. Recent works by Banerjee and Duflo illustrate how wellÂfounded scientific methodology can narrow the gap between rich and poor countries. Heckmanâs work quantifies the impact of preÂschool education on studentsâ success. In the field of artificial intelligence, one of the most active areas of research is concerned with discrimination, fairness, and social accountability. The distinctive features of these examples, setting them apart from CSJ, are that they are based on scientific evidence and logic and they address the root causes of inequalities, rather than their symptomatic manifestations.
There is a large literature in the field of psychology on the role that demographic biases play in how we judge individuals. Such biases are real and a justified concern, but fighting them with opposite biases and undermining merit is counterproductive. Two of the most robust findings in the literature are: (1) people massively judge others on their merits when their merits are clear and salient; and (2) in such situations, stereotypes and implicit biases are minimized. Thus, a sharp focus on merit minimizes bias and maximizes the chances that those who best meet the relevant standards (for admissions, hiring, publication, or anything else) will be rewarded, thereby promoting inclusion. For example, standardized tests can help to fairly evaluate applicants from diverse backgrounds andâif used properlyâincrease diversity. A strict focus on merit, properly implemented, also reduces the influence of bias, department politics, nepotism, and favoritism, thus facilitating diversity, while maximizing scientific quality and the publicâs confidence and trust in the academy and science.
How do we begin the process of depoliticizing science and strengthening meritÂ-based practices? We offer six concrete suggestions:
Insist that government funding for research be distributed solely on the basis of merit.
Ensure that academic departments and conferences select speakers based on scientific, rather than ideological, considerations.
Ensure that admissions, hiring, and promotion are meritÂbased and free from ideological tests.
Publish and retract scientific papers on the basis of scientific, not ideological, arguments or due to public pressure.
Require that universities enforce policies protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression, according to best practices promulgated by nonÂpartisan free speech and academic freedom organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Insist that university departments and professional societies refrain from issuing statements on social and political issues not relevant to their functioning, as recommended in the University of Chicagoâs Kalven Report.
Although much has been written about DEI, the arguments advocating it fall into familiar categories: reparative justice is needed to redress historical discrimination; DEI is necessary to fight current discrimination; and DEI is needed to level the playing field and achieve equal outcomes.
With respect to reparative justice, affirmative action policies are ineffective, arguably unfair, and counterproductive. Although we see no role in science for identityÂbased policies, we recognize that the playing field is not level. Outreach in admissions and hiring to candidates from less advantaged backgrounds is important, not only to promote fairness, but to enlarge the pool of promising candidates. Schools and universities have a role to play in leveling the playing field by uplifting students who have come from more difficult life circumstances, not by imposing quotas or lowering academic standards, but by providing students with opportunities to develop the rigorous skills they need to enter scientific fields, and the support to do so. In this way, merit and diversity become synergistic rather than antagonistic.
Advocates of CSJ approaches to DEI often present the options as if it is either CSJ or bigotry. We reject this false dichotomy. Dismantling or disrupting institutional practices that have produced scienceâs achievements, and replacing them with untested methods opposed to the Mertonian norms is a dangerous experiment that jeopardizes the future of science.
8. Conclusion
Imbuing science with ideology harms the scientific enterprise and leads to a loss of public trust. If we continue to undermine merit, our universities will become institutions of mediocrity rather than places of creativity and accomplishment, leading to the loss of the competitive edge in technology. Thus, we need to restore our commitment to practices grounded in epistemic humility and the meritocratic, liberal tradition.
We need to be vigilant against the dilution of our merit evaluations by biases, ideology, and nepotism. Moreover, as a community, we should continue to invest in mentoring and education to help people develop their full potential. Adopting the guidelines we have suggested does not mean that we ignore the contributions of past racism and sexism to the inequalities we observe today. It means addressing these issues in a fundamentally positive wayânot by introducing diversity metrics into funding or hiring decisions, nor by weakening the standards for university admissions and professional advancement, but by investing in the early pipeline, for example, by strengthening educational outreach and programs to increase access to sustained quality education and early exposure to STEMM.
Scientists must start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks; donors and funders should condition their support on nonÂpartisan and rational scientific pursuit. Science as a free pursuit of knowledge untainted by ideological orthodoxies maximally enhances the public good.
9. Afterword
Perhaps the grandest irony of them all, and the saddest commentary on the state of academia, is that this article, defending merit, could only be published in a journal devoted to airing âcontroversialâ ideas. As we were finalizing the manuscript for publication, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House released a 14Â-page long vision statement outlining the priorities for the U.S. STEMM ecosystem. The word âmeritâ appears nowhere in the document. In February, 2023, The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled âAdvancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation.â The report describes merit as a nonÂobjective, âculturally construedâ concept used to hide bias and perpetuate privilege, refers to objectivity and meritocracy in STEMM as myths, and calls for meritÂ-based metrics of evaluation to be dismantled.
==
When merit is a "controversial idea," that needs to be "dismantled," we're through the looking glass.
For anyone who is going to bald-faced lie and insist that "nObOdY iS dOiNg tHiS!" be aware they have a six-page bibliography with 149 citations. Start there, and good luck. And yes, it includes the notorious "Feminist Glaciology" paper.
The school bully is always jealous of the smart kids.
Why are we designing society around what the kids from the slow class think?
They’re meant to be heroes within the Star Wars universe, but the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work
Multiple adult humans in the current year were involved in un-ironically writing, editing and publishing this piece, and didn't feel self-conscious or embarrassed about doing so.