[flagged]
I will say to have DEI policy cover research is a terrible thing; but how many examples do you really have? How many are proven; scientists are not arbiters for truth themselves and colour science as much as policy and media. There will always be extreme outliers in all directions and mistakes, and what have you. The solution is to relax those constraints,not to fight back with more.
But that’s okay, because academia will once again become the domain of those rich and fortunate enough to practice it in their free time. Obviously, it has no value to the administration outside of the results it returns to business and productivity. So there’s not point arguing about something that won’t be here
It depends what you mean by diversity mindset but a lot of people along those lines seemed to see it as practicing racial discrimination - more blacks, less asians and the like. I think there's a lot to be said for not discriminating by race.
It listed a number of other positions that it would penalize, with the totality of tbe effect being to actively downgrade the colorblind position, and reward DEI positions.
Typically, the people against programs that attempt to solve these problems assume that some pockets of society are unfixable. Korea had a literacy rate of 22% in 1945. These people, had they existed in 1945, would have said, "Well, that's just the normal order of things. No need to try to fix it because you can't."
2. The job of science is to present the facts, not decide on social policy. It is the prerogative of the public at large, and their elected representatives, to decide policy. People in the scientific establishment do not have a mandate to push social policy outside of what the elected government has legislated.
This is not being proposed by the universities. You're attacking a straw man.
> The job of science is to present the facts, not decide on social policy
The job of a public university is not science but to serve society, just as with all other organs of the state. Doing science is just one of the ways that it does so.
As for the job of a public university, the job is to serve society through only one mechanism, and that is through the pursuit and transmission of scientific knowledge and truth.
It is not just another organ of the state that is free to serve society through political activism.
The role of educational institutions is to educate. In the case of universities, part of that is educating how to do science. The state chooses how to educate to get the most impact for the educational dollar, and Californian voters, despite their many failings, are smart enough to understand that educating more people successfully yields better outcomes than educating fewer because each field gets to draw the top people from a wider population and more pockets of society developing talent earlier as a result of knowing it won't be wasted later. This is validated by the scientific method (with many studies showing that the intuitive result actually holds). The ideological filter being applied is to find those who are willing to do their jobs as required by the employers who have a mandate from the voters.
If the University of California system were only interested in further preparing the best prepared students, it would only accept students from mainland China. Why that is not in the best interest of California I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Finally, I want to make the point that this is about federal spending. The whole article is complaining about the federal government cutting its spending for various activist fields and studies. If the people of California have a right to decide how their education spending is allocated, so do the people of the United States when they elect their federal government.
Once again, there is no politicized science or racial discrimination hiring alleged in the linked articles. You are arguing against a straw man.
> If the people of California have a right to decide how their education spending is allocated, so do the people of the United States when they elect their federal government.
And scientists have a right to accurately explain why the spending rules are broken for voters to make better decisions, just as you have a right to criticize any policies you don't like to try to convince voters. The linked article succeeds because it is accurately addressing cited parts of the statute and not straw men.
I don't think your "Diversity of thinking" approach applies, if I am reading your comment as a rebuttal of the GP? By following Popper's paradox in this case you are sacrificing diversity of thinking in exchange for an artificial racial diversity.
The GP argues that the system is set up to promote racial/gender diversity first and then ideological homogeneity to that end.
>The solution is to relax those constraints,not to fight back with more.
I think this is the solution for a free society at large, but the power play for the right wing is to just defund all academia- they don't have the right demographics or positioning to work within academia and tilt it to their side (or even to tilt it neutrally)
Agree on the last paragraph, sadly.
Or is it just that you support banning your ideological enemies, so you don't see it as objectionable?
[1] https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
> were prosecuted by the state (albeit in Sweden) for true findings that harmed that ideology [9].
is a mischaracterisation. They were investigated at the insistence of a single third party (I found no indication of prosecution, fines, etc) for making public parts of medical data which potentially exceeded their guidelines and ethical constraints given for access.
This is a problem facing almost all epidemiological studies based on detailed data from small communities.