I graduated with a Master of Science in I/O Psychology in 2009. The curriculum at my college is nothing but DEI now. Students today should not be graduating with a Master of Science when they cannot comprehend or apply the scientific method. Wokeisim has ruined my profession and I refuse to give in. Thank you for speaking out.
SETI. Ok, per your slide on Astrobiology, I will re-assign the I in SETI whenever I am in Pennsylvania. But can't we crank up the potentiometer of our virtue signalling some more? What about the E? and the T? Extraterrestrial?! Really!? That's OTHERING on a global scale or arguably a solar system scale, depending on the context. In either case, the ET is very not inclusive. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to show their bona fides by criticizing the S.
More seriously, though, my criticism of this essay is that in the necessary brevity of description of each of the many cases of sanctions of various professors, the author has presented a very one-sided polemic. In each of the two cases that the author presents as the worst cases of the many on his list, there is another side that is not exculpatory of the individual's behavior.
My (cursory) reading of what happened in these two cases can be summarized as follows:
Porter's error was using some real-life cases in his survey. The author skims by that dismissively. Had Porter gone through an IRB, that might have (might have!) given him some cover for personal responsibility for the error.
Widdowson was not sanctioned for questioning Cajete. Her question prompted a complaint. However, the author doesn't mention the salient point that the complaint was dismissed specifically because her question was not unreasonable. In defending herself and in her other behaviors, the administration feels she was too much. It will be interesting to learn the outcome of the arbitration of her appeal. In any case, Widdowson's publication of some of the transcripts is instructive.
Porter did run the cases by the relevant people at the university, and did change the cases so that they were not real life, and no real individuals would be identified.. In an hour, there is only so much to talk about.. things are never black and white, but the reactions in both Porter's case and Frances' case were extreme and ridiculous in my opinion
I disagree with your first sentence LMK and agree mostly with your second sentence.
I'll expound for the benefit of readers. Running the cases by relevant people is not the same as running it by the IRB. The latter would've been an effective CYA, or at least one would hope! Cynically I can imagine that even with an IRB review, there's probably still some caveat that the IRB doesn't indemnify the professor who is ultimately responsible for his behavior and perhaps also those under supervision. And as a potential feedback with negative consequences, if we all take a CYA approach to getting IRB approval for any possible study, the IRB will be dealing with a lot more frivolous submissions (noise) and won't be as good at identifying really harmful protocols (signal).
The changes from real life cases were insufficient to insulate Porter from criticism, and it seems to me, with limited understanding of the specific details, that at least some of the criticism is reasonable and justified. I can detail specifics, but I don't think doing so in this venue is appropriate. Porter's litigating his case, so it will be interesting to read the results of that. I still have a lot of faith in the US justice system, even with its limitations.
The process and the punishment the universities have meted out in these cases do seem disproportionate. Even if P or W win their appeals, the process will have been their punishment. Sigh.
I think your talk did a good job of explaining the incentives that can make officials behave in these seemingly bizarre ways. I remind myself often, "ex officio...ex officio...ex officio" That is, often a person behaves in a way because of the position that they are in. It's not necessarily personal, although sometimes one gets the impression that the disproportionate sanctions might really be about revenge for a personal grudge. I know you're not religious, so this argument isn't for you, but religious persons know that they should avoid wrath (one of the seven deadly sins).
Anthropomorphizing, the system doesn't care much about individuals - it cares about preserving and protecting the system.
As Stephen Colbert would saw, Meanwhile... on the front page of the NYT yesterday, below the fold, I read the following. You can add it to your menagerie of peculiar events. (I had heard the following via private channels and am glad to now have it out in public.)
"In October, the Royal Astronomical Society in Britain ... instructed that no astronomer who submits a paper to its journals should type the words “James Webb.” They must use the abbreviation JWST. (The wording "should" is accurate here, apparently, based on the following (link below), since "should" is not operative. From my reading, the "must use" is inaccurate reporting; it should have been "can use." Formally, the RAS is not making a requirement on the author's expression, it's just stating that it's not going to require authors to spell out that particular acronym. Threading the needle are they. It reminds me of Harry Potter and that character who shall not be named, but whose name begins with the letter before W in the alphabet when listed in the A...Z manner, which I write with some trepidation because doing so is probably is more evidence of something.)
"Until that investigation takes place and the results are made public, the RAS now expects authors submitting scientific papers to its journals to use the JWST acronym rather than the full name of the observatory." ( That is tricky language, "the RAS now expects" is not compulsory; it's NOT the wording of a requirement. If they meant it as a requirement, the RAS would state "authors...must use the JWST acronym exclusively rather than the full name..." I'm not sure right now what authors or editors were instruct privately months ago.)
Maybe someone should write a plugin for web browsers that substitutes "JWST" anywhere and everywhere "James Webb Space Telescope" appears on the web, to protect the person from harm. There's a lot of instances of that four word sequence out there, published before the RAS made its proclamation.
I wouldn't object to a journal allowing authors to use an acronym like JWST without requiring them to expand it once in their paper for clarity. But the NYT reporting that the RAS says authors must use JWST exclusively, that is too much for me, but I suspect inaccurate reporting by the NYT. I will check; private communications that I read months ago make me think that the NYT might not be entirely incorrect.
Disclaimer: I fully support people's rights to live their lives as they see fit. I have long advocated for that and for gay rights specifically for a long time.
Your point is well taken. I would suggest though, reading the details of Porter's defense, which I made available on my substack page, that the statement that the punishment is disproportionate is an understatement... compounded by the lack of what seems to have been due process in his case. As for the NYT piece.. I tweeted it when it came out.. Knowing, as I do, some of the back story as well, the author did a fantastic job of incisively exposing the situation.
Yes, we agree: reading details is good to form judgments. Takes time. ( I read the original survey, available through Porter's website, https://davesfsc.com/portfolio and I look forward to the legal records if they don't settle out of court beforehand.)
I find it is usually instructive to talk to the people involved. It's amazing what people will tell you when they trust you.
It makes sense to me that you would have known of yesterday's NYT article about JWST. I posted it here mostly for others' "benefit" and because it would have been very appropriately included in your presentation.
Good compilation of disgraceful woke events.
Great curation post! But Its missing psychology! I feel left out!
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/mandatory-diversity-equity-and-inclusion
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/1200-academics-denounced-me-as-racist
https://twitter.com/JonathanMAdler/status/1602439593726562304
So many instances. So little space. Indeed you are a victim too! :). All best. Lmk.
I graduated with a Master of Science in I/O Psychology in 2009. The curriculum at my college is nothing but DEI now. Students today should not be graduating with a Master of Science when they cannot comprehend or apply the scientific method. Wokeisim has ruined my profession and I refuse to give in. Thank you for speaking out.
SETI. Ok, per your slide on Astrobiology, I will re-assign the I in SETI whenever I am in Pennsylvania. But can't we crank up the potentiometer of our virtue signalling some more? What about the E? and the T? Extraterrestrial?! Really!? That's OTHERING on a global scale or arguably a solar system scale, depending on the context. In either case, the ET is very not inclusive. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to show their bona fides by criticizing the S.
More seriously, though, my criticism of this essay is that in the necessary brevity of description of each of the many cases of sanctions of various professors, the author has presented a very one-sided polemic. In each of the two cases that the author presents as the worst cases of the many on his list, there is another side that is not exculpatory of the individual's behavior.
My (cursory) reading of what happened in these two cases can be summarized as follows:
Porter's error was using some real-life cases in his survey. The author skims by that dismissively. Had Porter gone through an IRB, that might have (might have!) given him some cover for personal responsibility for the error.
Widdowson was not sanctioned for questioning Cajete. Her question prompted a complaint. However, the author doesn't mention the salient point that the complaint was dismissed specifically because her question was not unreasonable. In defending herself and in her other behaviors, the administration feels she was too much. It will be interesting to learn the outcome of the arbitration of her appeal. In any case, Widdowson's publication of some of the transcripts is instructive.
These cases very easily become Kafquesque.
Porter did run the cases by the relevant people at the university, and did change the cases so that they were not real life, and no real individuals would be identified.. In an hour, there is only so much to talk about.. things are never black and white, but the reactions in both Porter's case and Frances' case were extreme and ridiculous in my opinion
I disagree with your first sentence LMK and agree mostly with your second sentence.
I'll expound for the benefit of readers. Running the cases by relevant people is not the same as running it by the IRB. The latter would've been an effective CYA, or at least one would hope! Cynically I can imagine that even with an IRB review, there's probably still some caveat that the IRB doesn't indemnify the professor who is ultimately responsible for his behavior and perhaps also those under supervision. And as a potential feedback with negative consequences, if we all take a CYA approach to getting IRB approval for any possible study, the IRB will be dealing with a lot more frivolous submissions (noise) and won't be as good at identifying really harmful protocols (signal).
The changes from real life cases were insufficient to insulate Porter from criticism, and it seems to me, with limited understanding of the specific details, that at least some of the criticism is reasonable and justified. I can detail specifics, but I don't think doing so in this venue is appropriate. Porter's litigating his case, so it will be interesting to read the results of that. I still have a lot of faith in the US justice system, even with its limitations.
The process and the punishment the universities have meted out in these cases do seem disproportionate. Even if P or W win their appeals, the process will have been their punishment. Sigh.
I think your talk did a good job of explaining the incentives that can make officials behave in these seemingly bizarre ways. I remind myself often, "ex officio...ex officio...ex officio" That is, often a person behaves in a way because of the position that they are in. It's not necessarily personal, although sometimes one gets the impression that the disproportionate sanctions might really be about revenge for a personal grudge. I know you're not religious, so this argument isn't for you, but religious persons know that they should avoid wrath (one of the seven deadly sins).
Anthropomorphizing, the system doesn't care much about individuals - it cares about preserving and protecting the system.
As Stephen Colbert would saw, Meanwhile... on the front page of the NYT yesterday, below the fold, I read the following. You can add it to your menagerie of peculiar events. (I had heard the following via private channels and am glad to now have it out in public.)
"In October, the Royal Astronomical Society in Britain ... instructed that no astronomer who submits a paper to its journals should type the words “James Webb.” They must use the abbreviation JWST. (The wording "should" is accurate here, apparently, based on the following (link below), since "should" is not operative. From my reading, the "must use" is inaccurate reporting; it should have been "can use." Formally, the RAS is not making a requirement on the author's expression, it's just stating that it's not going to require authors to spell out that particular acronym. Threading the needle are they. It reminds me of Harry Potter and that character who shall not be named, but whose name begins with the letter before W in the alphabet when listed in the A...Z manner, which I write with some trepidation because doing so is probably is more evidence of something.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/james-webb-telescope-gay-rights.html
"Until that investigation takes place and the results are made public, the RAS now expects authors submitting scientific papers to its journals to use the JWST acronym rather than the full name of the observatory." ( That is tricky language, "the RAS now expects" is not compulsory; it's NOT the wording of a requirement. If they meant it as a requirement, the RAS would state "authors...must use the JWST acronym exclusively rather than the full name..." I'm not sure right now what authors or editors were instruct privately months ago.)
https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/news/ras-and-jwst
Maybe someone should write a plugin for web browsers that substitutes "JWST" anywhere and everywhere "James Webb Space Telescope" appears on the web, to protect the person from harm. There's a lot of instances of that four word sequence out there, published before the RAS made its proclamation.
I wouldn't object to a journal allowing authors to use an acronym like JWST without requiring them to expand it once in their paper for clarity. But the NYT reporting that the RAS says authors must use JWST exclusively, that is too much for me, but I suspect inaccurate reporting by the NYT. I will check; private communications that I read months ago make me think that the NYT might not be entirely incorrect.
Disclaimer: I fully support people's rights to live their lives as they see fit. I have long advocated for that and for gay rights specifically for a long time.
Your point is well taken. I would suggest though, reading the details of Porter's defense, which I made available on my substack page, that the statement that the punishment is disproportionate is an understatement... compounded by the lack of what seems to have been due process in his case. As for the NYT piece.. I tweeted it when it came out.. Knowing, as I do, some of the back story as well, the author did a fantastic job of incisively exposing the situation.
Yes, we agree: reading details is good to form judgments. Takes time. ( I read the original survey, available through Porter's website, https://davesfsc.com/portfolio and I look forward to the legal records if they don't settle out of court beforehand.)
I find it is usually instructive to talk to the people involved. It's amazing what people will tell you when they trust you.
I don't do much social media. (My favorite Twitter websites these days are https://twittoons.com/ and https://twitterisgoinggreat.com/ )
It makes sense to me that you would have known of yesterday's NYT article about JWST. I posted it here mostly for others' "benefit" and because it would have been very appropriately included in your presentation.
indeed.. thanks for posting... well done.
great!