"First they came for the biologists" WSJ article by Heather Heying

[LittleLebowski]

You might have to Google the title in order to read it (try the first link first), but well worth your time if you are interested in the effects of social justice warriors (SJWs) and political correctness on science.

https://archive.fo/i3gFD

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-they-came-for-the-biologists-1506984033


Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?

[fixer]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

[RoyGBiv]

For me, the sour grapes (and going straight to Godwin) leave me wondering where her outrage was when the problem started festering. Did she fail to see it? Was it disbelief that it would take root and spread so fast? It's pretty easy to speak out after you've been culled. Would have been more enlightening if she had offered some recommendations on how to address the problem.

[Rich@CCC]

Excellent read.

Roy, I'd agree with you in all but the blame side of your statement. They(the biologists) may have been totally oblivious to the problem until it hit them in the face. Occupational tunnel vision is a trait quite common in the hard science fields.

[blues]

Thanks for posting this, LL. On a related note, I'm glad Harper Lee didn't live live to see her classic, "To Kill A Mockingbird" banned in the Biloxi schools.

Let's just pretend all inconvenient truths never existed, or no longer exist. That'll help propel us forward. :rolleyes:

And so it goes...

[GardoneVT]

My dos centivos;

Guven that much of the output of academia is difficult to rank objectively,it's a very political environment. Meaning the reasons someone gets a bad shake can come down to "because Dean X felt like it". While that's not to say that there aren't bias challenges within many colleges, the author admits to being dismissed from the example institution along with her husband. It smells of "axe to grind" ,and I doubt we'd be reading this piece if she (or her husband) were promoted instead.

Now that the source is addressed we can come to the topic. Academic courses at one point prepared students for a professional career,and the courses were oriented to that goal.Today they don't prepare them for anything,and it's a fact employers have caught onto. Since moden college is simply a profit center for research projects -one totally divorced from the educational needs of employers- companies ignore degrees and seek experienced candidates, and the college curriculum becomes designed to pad institutional resumes. Since SJW science projects get more attention , SJW policies become unwritten law. Questioning the validity of diversity policy isn't about science or fact,it's literally questioning the ability of the college to "do business".

[Aray]

And so it goes...

Nicely done. Vonnegut is one of my favorites, despite his politics.

[WobblyPossum]

It seems even professors are starting to get uncomfortable with some of the ideas and methods of the left. Maybe if enough people start paying attention, we can prevent an all out slide into insanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

For me, the sour grapes (and going straight to Godwin) leave me wondering where her outrage was when the problem started festering. Did she fail to see it? Was it disbelief that it would take root and spread so fast? It's pretty easy to speak out after you've been culled. Would have been more enlightening if she had offered some recommendations on how to address the problem.

Who's to say that they weren't fighting it when the problem started festering? Why are you implying that she either failed to see it or did nothing about it when they lost their jobs over their actions of not being party to it?

[OlongJohnson]

My dos centivos;

Guven that much of the output of academia is difficult to rank objectively,it's a very political environment. Meaning the reasons someone gets a bad shake can come down to "because Dean X felt like it". While that's not to say that there aren't bias challenges within many colleges, the author admits to being dismissed from the example institution along with her husband. It smells of "axe to grind" ,and I doubt we'd be reading this piece if she (or her husband) were promoted instead.

Are you event a little bit familiar with the shitstorm of absurd nonsense that she and her husband went through? This is literally the first time I've heard her actual name, because her husband was the focus of it. Bret Weinstein has been in the news. He is a leftist's lefty, but wasn't left enough for the SJWs who rose up and took over the campus where he worked, literally physically holding the president hostage at one point.

[blues]

Nicely done. Vonnegut is one of my favorites, despite his politics.

I can't speak to his politics in general as I'm not really familiar with his views outside of the many novels I've read.

That said, if you haven't already read this very short (five minute) vignette by him, I think you'll be very much in agreement with Vonnegut's prescience...and it's very germane to the discussion at hand:

Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)

[LittleLebowski]

Are you event a little bit familiar with the shitstorm of absurd nonsense that she and her husband went through? This is literally the first time I've heard her actual name, because her husband was the focus of it. Bret Weinstein has been in the news. He is a leftist's lefty, but wasn't left enough for the SJWs who rose up and took over the campus where he worked, literally physically holding the president hostage at one point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html

[Aray]

I can't speak to his politics in general as I'm not really familiar with his views outside of the many novels I've read.

That said, if you haven't already read this very short (five minute) vignette by him, I think you'll be very much in agreement with Vonnegut's prescience...and it's very germane to the discussion at hand:

Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)

Just read it again. Classic Vonnegut.

[Erick Gelhaus]

What was that line? Oh yeah ... "If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention."

Got it.

[Totem Polar]

Stuff like this makes me sad.

‘Cause, I absolutely love teaching, and love my students and the work we do. But I see admin totally going off the rails with bloat and agenda. Not a month goes by in the academic year without getting an announcement of another hire in the diversity wing of the U. Note: that is not the same as a "diversity hire;" I’m talking about memos announcing a new VP of diversity, or assistant to the ________ for diversity, or some such. This, at the same time that tenure track lines are shrinking to the point of irrelevance—at least when it comes to governance, and student outcomes.

There is a war against people who actually teach in the classroom happening at many of these places. The best and brightest in each field are teaching under the boots of many who couldn’t find their ass with both hands in their own fields, so they took their bullshit doctorate and went into admin. You can see it everywhere, especially state-supported Us.

The result is those quotes coming from admins like the Evergreen pres.

Lastly, it’s sometimes hard to tell the dancing bears from the handlers at the circus: there is a lot of student manipulation going down as well. JME.

[RoyGBiv]

Who's to say that they weren't fighting it when the problem started festering? Why are you implying that she either failed to see it or did nothing about it when they lost their jobs over their actions of not being party to it?
My recollection of events... Should have posted a link...

Brett Weinstein is a progressive (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html)...
He (they) was likely on the same side as the protesters on most things, until he decided to break ranks on this one issue and got flattened by his alienated mob... Sour grapes.

From the link above:

When the Left Turns on Its Own
Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., who supported Bernie Sanders, admiringly retweets Glenn Greenwald and was an outspoken supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
...........
“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles,” he wrote, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.” The first instance, he argued, “is a forceful call to consciousness.” The second “is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.” In other words, what purported to be a request for white students and professors to leave campus was something more than that. It was an act of moral bullying — to stay on campus as a white person would mean to be tarred as a racist.

FYI.. they won a $500K settlement, then resigned..

[blues]

Stuff like this makes me sad.

‘Cause, I absolutely love teaching, and love my students and the work we do. But I see admin totally going off the rails with bloat and agenda. Not a month goes by in the academic year without getting an announcement of another hire in the diversity wing of the U. Note: that is not the same as a "diversity hire;" I’m talking about memos announcing a new VP of diversity, or assistant to the ________ for diversity, or some such. This, at the same time that tenure track lines are shrinking to the point of irrelevance—at least when it comes to governance, and student outcomes.

There is a war against people who actually teach in the classroom happening at many of these places. The best and brightest in each field are teaching under the boots of many who couldn’t find their ass with both hands in their own fields, so they took their bullshit doctorate and went into admin. You can see it everywhere, especially state-supported Us.

The result is those quotes coming from admins like the Evergreen pres.

Lastly, it’s sometimes hard to tell the dancing bears from the handlers at the circus: there is a lot of student manipulation going down as well. JME.

You, my friend, are obviously unfit to train young (or old) minds. Get thee to a nunnery brewery!

It's a very sad state of affairs. I saw it as a gov't employee when mandatory "diversity / sensitivity training" was foisted upon us and it's been downhill ever since. Of course, the ball was already set in motion a good while before that.

[ranger]

I cannot help but note that most campuses now look like resorts. I blame the government getting into the college loan business giving anyone a college loan thereby giving colleges/universities seemingly unlimited potential students (and thereby unlimited money) and the ability to constantly raise the price of a college education. Then, we have a surge of "educated" people with no marketable skills with high college load debt.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing world I live in cannot get enough competent hard skill college grads - mostly STEM.

[Totem Polar]

You, my friend, are obviously unfit to train young (or old) minds. Get thee to a nunnery brewery!


A beer a day helps keep admin at bay; I'm way ahead of you... :D :D :D

[Sensei]

I cannot help but note that most campuses now look like resorts. I blame the government getting into the college loan business giving anyone a college loan thereby giving colleges/universities seemingly unlimited potential students (and thereby unlimited money) and the ability to constantly raise the price of a college education. Then, we have a surge of "educated" people with no marketable skills with high college load debt.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing world I live in cannot get enough competent hard skill college grads - mostly STEM.

There is a reason why the government assumed the role of exclusive lender for all educational loans back in 2010. Ironically, it was passed as a rider to amend the Affordable Care Act. Now, the government can have financial leverage over its citizens as it indirectly incentivizes the accumulation of more personal debt. What could possibly go wrong.

A cynic might think that someday political parties wanting to buy votes legally will offer forgiveness of that debt as a campaign promise; I used the term parties (i.e. plural) intentionally...

[Suvorov]

Meanwhile, the manufacturing world I live in cannot get enough competent hard skill college grads - mostly STEM.

But those degrees are hard!

I think it deeply ironic to see college students and faculty/staff protests against corporations taking advantage of the public when it is these institutions of higher learning that are happily paving the way for many of what is a future of indentured servitude.

[Totem Polar]

I cannot help but note that most campuses now look like resorts. I blame the government getting into the college loan business giving anyone a college loan thereby giving colleges/universities seemingly unlimited potential students (and thereby unlimited money) and the ability to constantly raise the price of a college education. Then, we have a surge of "educated" people with no marketable skills with high college load debt.

Man, if you really want to see someone go off the rails on a discussion forum, just wait until I get back from blues’ prescribed dose of microbrewery tonight, and I start in on Georgetown, and the start of the hypersexualized degree programs set against a back drop of multi-million dollar rock climbing gyms and shit, along with all these interlocking board members that sit for competing institutions...

When I first started looking at this stuff about a decade ago, there was this one chase bank VP who sat on the boards of 4 totally different Us in my state... his day job was loans.

Students are a commodity to be recruited and monetized; we’ve long known that this was part of the deal, but now it’s open talk, and accepted as the main goal. Some of the things I’ve personally heard come out of deans’ mouths is so incredibly disrespectful of students as to be criminal.

Supporting detail after beers... or not. :D


Teaser: https://www.forbes.com/sites/caranewlon/2014/07/31/the-college-amenities-arms-race/#3d36b5074883

[blues]

Man, if you really want to see someone go off the rails on a discussion forum, just wait until I get back from blues’ prescribed dose of microbrewery tonight...

Just remember, M...beer is proof that God loves you. Or the force. Or Krishna consciousness. Or Buddha. Or the anarchists. In any case, it's good for you.

[Joe in PNG]

The Higher Education bubble is getting even closer to popping- kind of like housing back in the late 2000's.

[RevolverRob]

So, I read the article. As a scientist of color, more specifically a biologist of color - I'd like to proffer a very myopic opinion.

It's bullshit.

Are there clearly administrative problems at Evergreen? Is the Pope Catholic? (Evergreen was founded on administrative problems...). I agree with one sentiment of the piece, that science is an integral part of seeking truth. Beyond that, I disagree, almost entirely, with the premise of the author. She says biologists are attacked because they say "genetic" and "phenotype". What the fuck? I use those words every single day and I've never had someone attack me for them.

Then it devolves into a discussion the implies that students, administrators, and the public are anti-intellectual and specifically attacked her and her husband for being biologists. It isn't true. She and her husband failed to follow a long-standing Evergreen tradition and were attacked for that behavior. Do I agree with this attack? No. But it's not an attempt to silence scientists or biologists, it's an attempt to silence Weinstein and Heying.

I'll just be a wet blanket. Weinstein has a history as a whistleblower and problem child. His wife is a lame duck. I'm guessing that at best, they are limelight seekers who saw this opportunity and took advantage of it. At worst, they deliberately planned for this day and used this particular situation to capitalize. Weinstein is a nobody in the professional field of biology. He hasn't published a single scientific research article since the 1990s, he is not an authority in anything in biology. His wife, Dr. Heying, has not published a scientific research article since 2007, where she was the third of four authors. She too is not an authority in anything within biology.

Now the two of them are almost household names. They've capitalized on a poorly managed situation to buy face time. I see that Weinstein is now planning a new "content series" called the "The Evolutionary Lens". I don't know what the fuck that is, but I'm guessing it will be done with the same degree of veracity that he used in his scientific research (oh wait...). Weinstein calls himself an "Evolutionary Theorist" that I do know. I am an evolutionary theorist. Recognized in my field by virtue of the publications and work that I have done. Bret Weinstein is NOT an evolutionary theorist recognized by anyone. But now he has national media attention to project himself as something he is not.

It's bullshit.

[Totem Polar]

^^^Can it be possible that he’s both a hack, and got screwed over by PC nonsense? I’m not seeing mutual exclusivity...

[Nephrology]

I'm not familiar at all with the husband/wife in question, but this trend on undergraduate campuses has affected my own alma mater, Reed College (https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21728688-reed-college-oregon-shows-left-v-left-clashes-can-be-equally-vitriolic-arguments). Excerpt below:


The protesters argue that the Humanities programme is racist because it ignores many of the world’s great civilisations and because its authors are overwhelmingly male and white. They point out that black students represent less than 3% of the school’s 1,400 students and argue that the administration has not done enough to support them. A good portion of the student body appear to support their goals and tactics.

Assistant professor Lucia Martinez Valdivia, who describes herself as mixed-race and queer, asked protesters not to demonstrate during her lecture on Sappho last November. Ms Valdivia said she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and doubted her ability to deliver the lecture in the face of their opposition. At first, demonstrators announced they would change tactics and sit quietly in the audience, wearing black. After her speech, a number of them berated her, bringing her to tears.

Demonstrators said Ms Valdivia was guilty of a variety of offences: she was a “race traitor” who upheld white supremacist principles by failing to oppose the Humanities syllabus. She was “anti-black” because she appropriated black slang by wearing a T-shirt that said, “Poetry is Lit”. She was an “ableist” because she believes trigger warnings sometimes diminish sexual trauma. She was also called a “gaslighter” for making disadvantaged students doubt their own feelings of oppression. “I am intimidated by these students,” she later wrote in a blog post. “I am scared to teach courses on race, gender or sexuality or even texts that bring these issues up in any way…I’m at a loss as to how to begin to address it, especially since many of these students don’t believe in historicity or objective facts (they denounce the latter as being a tool of the white cisheteropatriarchy).”

A few weeks later, the college invited Kimberly Peirce, the gender-fluid director of “Boys Don’t Cry”, which was widely praised as the first sympathetic portrayal of trans people in cinema. Protesters ripped down posters promoting the event and put up their own posters that said: “Fuck this cis white bitch” (“cis” being shorthand for cisgendered, or people who identify with their birth sex) and “Fuck your transphobia.” When Ms Peirce tried to speak, they shouted her down because they felt she had profited from violence against trans people and because she had cast Hillary Swank, a non-trans actor, as the lead. The dean of faculty, Nigel Nicholson, later wrote that students came to the session “asking questions designed to indict the speaker…It felt like a courtroom, not a college.”



Totally flabbergasted.

[holmes168]

I'm not familiar at all with the husband/wife in question, but this trend on undergraduate campuses has affected my own alma mater, Reed College (https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21728688-reed-college-oregon-shows-left-v-left-clashes-can-be-equally-vitriolic-arguments). Excerpt below:



Totally flabbergasted.

So glad I went to college two decades ago. My only protest was when the bar closed at 02:00.
I don't understand how the current generation thinks they will get jobs after graduating.

[Nephrology]

So glad I went to college two decades ago. My only protest was when the bar closed at 02:00.
I don't understand how the current generation thinks they will get jobs after graduating.

Jobs are obviously the tool of the cisheteropatriarchy. They're going to live on communal food in giant rat heaps that burst into flames (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire) during their dance parties...

[RevolverRob]

^^^Can it be possible that he’s both a hack, and got screwed over by PC nonsense? I’m not seeing mutual exclusivity...

Yes. And to be honest, I think that Evergreen Admin's response to this whole situation is bullshit, too. I've seen both sides of this in a really fascinating way. The portion where administration does nothing to address issues of students/faculty/staff of color. And the part where students get out of hand, in particular due to ignorance of how the system works.

In an administrative position, I take a hardline on student protests. Ones like Evergreen's "day of absence" should not be tacitly supported by the admin, nor faculty. In that realm, I cannot blame Weinstein and Heying for speaking out. Nor do I find a sympathetic position with the admin for supporting student fervor. I do find it interesting that neither Weinstein nor Heying spoke out against these issues in the decade-plus that they have been employed at Evergreen...

Similarly to the example Neph posted - I won't tolerate students protesting in my classroom and will happily call the cops to break out the hickory shampoo. I'd like the admin to back me (but they won't).

Where I disagree, fundamentally, is with Dr. Heying's assertion that she and her husband were attacked because they are scientists and specifically, because they are biologists. I don't believe her or him with that assertion. They were attacked for countering the common line and standing up to the bullies. That's sufficiently righteous. Don't blame these attacks on your field of study, because all you are doing is dragging down a field of study (and in this instance my field of study). If Weinstein and Heying were attacked because they are scientists, it is because they are barely credible scientists, not because of what the teach and why.

Put another way, Heying's article places the blame on students and the administration for her and her husband being fired. And specifically, she implies that it is because they are scientists who aren't afraid to speak the truth. Actually they just weren't afraid to speak the truth. They rocked the boat and ended up canned because of it. If they had simultaneously been boat rockers AND really great scientists, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because they'd still be employed. Win a Nobel Prize and you can say stupid shit all day long with minimal consequences. - Or just think of it like this, they were in a glass house, threw stones, got some stones thrown back, and suffered the consequences. Do I feel that they should have had to throw the stones they did in the first place? Not a bit. But I'm unsympathetic once they ended up fired for it.

[RevolverRob]

Just to note - The "Day of Absence" began in 1965. In 1992 a "Day of Presence" was added to balance the "Day of Absence". https://evergreen.edu/multicultural/day-of-absence-day-of-presence

Why did Weinstein and Heying, who have been on the faculty since at least 2006, suddenly object to the Day of Absence?

I know it can be hard to find an academic job, but 11-years and you can't find somewhere else to move to if you don't like the working climate? Bullshit.

Weinstein is playing up that he is now a "Professor in Exile". And is implying that he can't find another job, because he "speaks the truth". Or maybe it's because he is a terrible scientist? Who is less qualified than a 4th year PhD student in biology to be a faculty member? :rolleyes:

Sorry guys. This one is personal for me from the perspective of this is my job and specifically Weinstein claims to do the type of research that I actually do on a daily basis. Hot air, smoke and mirrors, style not substance.

[Clusterfrack]

Just to note - The "Day of Absence" began in 1965. In 1992 a "Day of Presence" was added to balance the "Day of Absence". https://evergreen.edu/multicultural/day-of-absence-day-of-presence

Why did Weinstein and Heying, who have been on the faculty since at least 2006, suddenly object to the Day of Absence?

I know it can be hard to find an academic job, but 11-years and you can't find somewhere else to move to if you don't like the working climate? Bullshit.

Weinstein is playing up that he is now a "Professor in Exile". And is implying that he can't find another job, because he "speaks the truth". Or maybe it's because he is a terrible scientist? Who is less qualified than a 4th year PhD student in biology to be a faculty member? :rolleyes:

Sorry guys. This one is personal for me from the perspective of this is my job and specifically Weinstein claims to do the type of research that I actually do on a daily basis. Hot air, smoke and mirrors, style not substance.

Yeah, he's not much of a scholar. H-index of 3 in 11 years (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bret_Weinstein) is about as weak as it gets. No one is going to hire this guy because he has not published much, and no one is citing his work. Of course, Evergreen isn't exactly known for its research.

[OlongJohnson]

The Day of Absence/Presence thing has been going on for a long time. What was new this year was the minority groups telling the white people that they needed to not be present on campus (presumably for the Day of Presence). That's why he suddenly objected.

What Weinstein objected to was being told that he was not welcome because of his skin color, at his place of work, in a time and place where he not only had a legal right to be but responsibilities and duties to carry out. His point was that choosing to remove oneself to make a point is one thing, assembling and exercising speech is something he supports, but telling others they cannot be somewhere because of their race is a whole other thing, and he would not comply. And they all lost their shit over it.

And seriously, just because you haven't seen or experienced it at your institution, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening elsewhere.

[RevolverRob]

The Day of Absence/Presence thing has been going on for a long time. What was new this year was the minority groups telling the white people that they needed to not be present on campus (presumably for the Day of Presence). That's why he suddenly objected.

That's not what was said by the group with respect to day of absence. Given the premise of DofA, groups from all colors are encouraged to stay or go from campus, depending on the situation. The students made a suggestion that white faculty and students allow them a day on the campus, after feeling like they were unwelcome during the election. I'm not defending the idiocy of this statement, mind you, clarifying what was asked.


What Weinstein objected to was being told that he was not welcome because of his skin color, at his place of work, in a time and place where he not only had a legal right to be but responsibilities and duties to carry out. His point was that choosing to remove oneself to make a point is one thing, assembling and exercising speech is something he supports, but telling others they cannot be somewhere because of their race is a whole other thing, and he would not comply. And they all lost their shit over it.

Again, I'm not saying that the mob was right and Weinstein was wrong. Both groups were wrong. Weinstein penned an op-ed letter and get hate flak for it. Surprise, surprise - But what happened next is what sunk him and his career. Going on Tucker Carlson's show, not clearing a media interview with the administration, and making broad statements about his institution - was fucking dumb and career suicide. Being a "Professor for X Institution" on TV, the newspaper, any media - means you represent that institution. Given the statements that Weinstein made, he is lucky he wasn't terminated over that. It shows the weak will of Evergreen in this instance. I'd have fired his ass and would have expected to be fired immediately, if I did what he did.


And seriously, just because you haven't seen or experienced it at your institution, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening elsewhere.

I don't know what this means? My institution has plenty of stupid problems like this - https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/2/16/outside-iop-event-lewandwoski-students-protested-i/

_

None of this changes the reality of Dr. Heying's Op-Ed piece. Neither she, nor her husband, were fired due to their science. Their science had nothing to do with the matter. In fact, neither were actually fired, both resigned (my guess is by force). The further implication that both of them are "in forced exile" is also unlikely to be true. They are in self-imposed exile, due to the fact that neither of them holds significant scientific credentials AND they are political problem makers. At the end of the day academia is politics and Weinstein and Heying both shot themselves in the foot. Their $500k settlement from Evergreen is generous and reflects only on the stupidity of the president in not allowing the cops to shut down the protests that were out of hand.

___

Again, I'm not saying Weinstein is wholly wrong and the protesters are right. The protesters were wrong, Weinstein has a valid point but issued it the wrong way and then escalated the problem like a jackass, the Evergreen President was wrong in not allowing the police to deal with the protesters, in not issuing an immediate call for review of the Day of Absence/Presence programming, and finally for not firing Weinstein the instant he appeared on television as a representative of Evergreen.