Current Events > Students Deny Science for Social Justice

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/self-censorship-campus-bad-science/589969/

When students at Williams or anywhere else try to protect their worldview by denying scientific evidence, it is bound to affect what professors teach and how they teach it. Campus norms proscribe any discourse that might offend women, minorities, or anyone perceived as a victim of patriarchal white societies. However, this rule, no matter how well intentioned, is harming the very people it aims to protect. The argument favoring a certain amount of self-censorship is that it is necessary to protect minority students from feeling unsafe when they hear what they see as hate speech. However, by not talking about science that some find unsettling, we deny students opportunities for learning and for intellectual empowerment. How well can they argue their positions effectively unless they are seeing the world as it really is?

Obviously this is stupid but, what unsettling science are they talking about?

Starting it now, but the author is a Biology professor so I am assume this is a going to be an interesting vent piece.
---

specialkid8 posted...

Obviously this is stupid but, what unsettling science are they talking about?

The article lists a number of different topics that the biology teacher is having issues with now.
---

Feelings > Science
---

Not surprising, unfortunately.

A vote for a Democrat in 2020 is a vote for this sort of mindset.
---

bump

And they wonder why Trump is President

Houston posted...

Not surprising, unfortunately.

A vote for a Democrat in 2020 is a vote for this sort of mindset.

Our current President and his party are actively suppressing climate science and are doing their worst to try to discourage transgenderism, so I don't know if this is the win for the GOP you think it is. Not to mention the ever-present attempts to put creationism in science textbooks, or the bipartisan craziness of anti-vaxxing.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14" data-time="
---

specialkid8 posted...

Obviously this is stupid but, what unsettling science are they talking about?

The examples used in the article are kin selection, genetic heritability (especially as it relates to behavioral tendencies and intelligence), and differences between men and women.
---

s0nicfan posted...

specialkid8 posted...

Obviously this is stupid but, what unsettling science are they talking about?

The article lists a number of different topics that the biology teacher is having issues with now.

This.

Just read the article
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Houston posted...

Not surprising, unfortunately.

A vote for a Democrat in 2020 is a vote for this sort of mindset.

Our current President and his party are actively suppressing climate science and are doing their worst to try to discourage transgenderism, so I don't know if this is the win for the GOP you think it is. Not to mention the ever-present attempts to put creationism in science textbooks, or the bipartisan craziness of anti-vaxxing.

I suppose it just depends on what issues or causes people consider to hold more of a significance or priority, then.

Fostering ideas that deny basic science in the name of social justice isn't something that sits too well with me when compared with something less than 1% of the population identifies as (transgender), who are allegedly being discouraged. As far as climate science is concerned, the U.S. is very low on emissions compared to many other countries. There's really not much the U.S. can do at this point that would have any significant positive impact.
---

Another thing to add to a ripe new religion.
---

Now, to be fair, IQ is a measure of intelligence, and is a scale based on how you perform in regards to other people. Saying 50% of your IQ is heritable is kinda disingenuous when like 80% of people fall within the same like 20 point range. Also the source she points says we have found genes that explain about 5% of the differences in intelligence in people, and the 50% stat is not well sourced either.

The bit about Kin selection, I can definitely see that being misconstrued into a "nepotism is totally fine guys" lecture if it wasn't done properly, and even then, for someone looking for reason to get upset, it'll be there. Like if this prof isn't a particularly good prof

Also, in regards to life and health sciences, I believe the gender discrepancy is pretty even, if not favouring women (Which begs the question of why it was even brought up). I know in my personal experience, my major (Biology) was like 60% women.

And then it just goes off about "millennials and their safe spaces", I feel like there might be a bias here...

Proto_Spark posted...

I feel like there might be a bias here...

Noooo, really?
---

What are they teaching? That men are physically stronger than women?

I'm a bit curious as to what's racist here. If a professor is trying to suggest that certain ethnic groups are smarter than others, the problem's not with the students. <_<

Proto_Spark posted...

Also, in regards to life and health sciences, I believe the gender discrepancy is pretty even, if not favouring women (Which begs the question of why it was even brought up). I know in my personal experience, my major (Biology) was like 60% women.

That's Biology. Now go to a more abstract quantitative science where you're studying things that far less social connections or engineering. The female demographic drops off considerably and this is more apparent when you hit grad school.

Schools, tech and engineering firms heavily recruit females because of women's innate preference for more social fields.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

What are they teaching? That men are physically stronger than women?

I'm a bit curious as to what's racist here. If a professor is trying to suggest that certain ethnic groups are smarter than others, the problem's not with the students. <_<

In the article, they mention differences in preferences between boys and men and girls and women. For example, baby boys tend to prefer toys with wheels and girls prefer toys that are plushy. And the preferences also occur in other primates.
---

Esrac posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

What are they teaching? That men are physically stronger than women?

I'm a bit curious as to what's racist here. If a professor is trying to suggest that certain ethnic groups are smarter than others, the problem's not with the students. <_<

In the article, they mention differences in preferences between boys and men and girls and women. For example, baby boys tend to prefer toys with wheels and girls prefer toys that are plushy. And the preferences also occur in other primates.

Oh, that.

Sad_Face posted...

Proto_Spark posted...

Also, in regards to life and health sciences, I believe the gender discrepancy is pretty even, if not favouring women (Which begs the question of why it was even brought up). I know in my personal experience, my major (Biology) was like 60% women.

That's Biology. Now go to a more abstract quantitative science where you're studying things that far less social connections or engineering. The female demographic drops off considerably and this is more apparent when you hit grad school.

Schools, tech and engineering firms heavily recruit females because of women's innate preference for more social fields.

But the prof who wrote the article is a biologist. She isn't exactly experiencing the lack of female physics students.

Proto_Spark posted...

But the prof who wrote the article is a biologist. She isn't exactly experiencing the lack of female physics students.

Not only does the article not imply this but in the article:

One set of data challenges the idea that bias is the only cause of sex-ratio differences in the STEM fields. The so-called gender-equality paradox involves the observation that, while women and men around the world perform equally well on standardized science tests, countries with the highest proportion of women in STEM are not the ones with the least discrimination or sexual harassment, but those with the greatest gender inequality. Where women are free to choose their own path and do not have to worry about pay, they gravitate toward the humanities. Countries such as Norway and Finland have relatively few women in STEM fields, while countries such as Algeria and Indonesia have an ample supply.

---

Spectral_Wrath posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14" data-time="

Holy shit these are some straight up clowns that school should be defunded.

Hulkasaurusrex posted...

Spectral_Wrath posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14" data-time="

Holy shit these are some straight up clowns that school should be defunded.

I can't be certain, but I think that video is in South Africa. They're also in the process of forcefully removing white people from their owned land.
---

Welp might as well throw out every class since someone somewhere can make an arguement that learning itself advances white supremacy because a majority of the students are white.
---